Why fears about federal debt are so much hokum

House Speaker John Boehner inadvertently said it best: "We have spent more than what we have brought into this government for 55 of the last 60 years." Talk about sustainability - "If our fiscal practices haven't caught up to us after 60 years, when will they?" writes Bloomberg's Josh Barro. Boehner says that "no business in America could survive like this," but Barro points to Walmart, which has somehow found a way to keep growing despite a 5,760 percent increase in debt since 1987 (orange bars show Walmart debt levels). For the Republicans, it's never been about debt. It's about smaller government. From the Barro piece:

Of course, budget deficits work because the government is different from a household. A government does not have a life cycle, does not ever expect to stop generating income to support itself, and, therefore, does not ever have to retire its debt. It must keep its debts at a manageable size relative to the economy, which the U.S. has done over that 60 year period. If the economy is growing over the long term, that means the government can run a deficit and grow the debt every year -- sustainably.

[CUT]

What Boehner and House Republicans really want are excuses to cut federal spending, particularly on programs such as Medicaid and food stamps that support low-income Americans. But those cuts are unpopular, so Republicans frame fiscal debate to make such cuts appear necessary to avoid disaster. If you can't borrow or tax more, and can't cut old-age entitlements or the military, which command the majority of federal spending, you're not left with many options but to soak the poor. Soaking the poor is a policy option. It is not, as Boehner would have it, a policy necessity dictated by the inability of the federal government to borrow or tax sustainably.