America's national debt looks like this:
Debt Held by the Public: 6,296,581,792,932.27
Total Public Debt Outstanding: 10,620,397,126,433.52
As of 01/23/2009.
To better acquaint the amateur debt watcher with our nation's fiscal quagmire, American Public Media has provided an enjoyable, short game called Budget Hero.
Budget Hero allows a user to set three national goals (national defense, efficient government, economic stimulus, etc), and then to 'play the economy' deciding what gets funded, and what gets axed. Nine categories from taxes to social security are presented, each with its own assortment of cards detailing policy choices. One may call for an increase in spending, such as investing more for foreign aid, or slash the current investment in foreign aid.
Users are able to monitor their choices' effects on the national debt, size of government, whether one is running in deficit/surplus, and the date when the budget is set to 'bust.' Depending upon the cards one plays, a user can earn the badges for the budget goals (national defense, economic stimulus, etc) that were selected at the beginning of the game. When the budget is completed a widget is available for social sites or blogs to show off one's experiments with the nation's checkbooks and priorities. For example:
Can you beat that?
There is also a community post with some interesting chatter.
-§-
Incidentally, as of 2009 America's big government is running a $513 billion deficit and the cauliflowering national debt (held by the public) makes up 40% of GDP, the budget is set to bust as of 2031, and government spending makes up 21.5% of current GDP.
What does this all mean?
GDP: In this case Gross Domestic Product refers to the the total amount of money spent on final goods and services in one year. America has the largest economy in the world, with an estimated GDP of $14.33 trillion in 2008. Here is the 2008 budget as pie portions:
Despite the impressive cash flow, old debts and new expenditures (Iraq: $591 billion Bailout: ~$7.5 trillion) have increased the national deficit, meaning the amount the US must pay toward its debts each year has increased. Existing programs, like social security and Medicare are facing a changing US demographic; workers are aging. Accordingly, these programs are going to ring up at higher prices in coming years. So, when policy window shopping, what can our nation afford?
The moral is, this isn't easy.
Hopefully a round of Budget Hero or a trapse through sites like FacingUp, Budget and Economic Outlook Congressional testimony, or President Bush's proposed 2009 federal budget, will help people to reflect on the merits and comparative costs of investing or abstaining from programs. Recent(ish) articles like the NY Times' "What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy," Wired's "10 Sci-Fi Techs We Could Build If They Weren't So Damn Expensive" USA Today's "[50] Other Ways to Spend the Iraq War's Trillions," highlight the buyers remorse many taxpayers are experiencing when confronted with the bill for the now unpopular conflict (5/1/08 CNN report indicates 68% of those polled oppose the Iraq war).
But crying over spilt milk and sunk costs is not productive. One can easily argue that, given a time machine, avoiding the need or desire for the Iraq war does not mean the American people would have wanted to spend such a large amount of federal funds on anything or invested in any of the above discussed tech or social projects instead. $7.5 trillion and $591 billion are hard numbers to swallow. But, if, for example, that $1.2 trillion really were burning a hole in our collective pocket, any one of the following projects could have been:
- Paving all American highways in pure gold leaf
- 200 Large Hadron Colliders
- 4,800 small Earth-orbiting satellites
- A transatlantic tunnel
- 18x increase to the US Department of Education's budget [children, future, etc]
- $3900 tax credit for every American
- Provide 150,000,000 with a year of free health care
- 8,800 F-22 Raptors
Apparently someone wrote a book on this issue too.
Myraid combinations of smaller investments could have also absorbed the sum. And all these projects remain in the wings, with their advocates, and their critics. Proponents of small government usually faint during discussions of trillion dollar outlays. Certainly any program investment is worth a debate, but in light of the known benefits and more predictable costs of certain projects, like increasing Pell Grants so students can go to college (another $10 billion), or investing in road infrastructure (another $20 billion) can be enticing even to the fiscal pessimists. A more educated workforce will compete for more sophisticated jobs in America. With greater earning potential, these educated people also have greater spending power with which to stimulate the economy.
Other projects could pay dividends in more circumspect ways; according to Wired, maglev tubes between L.A. and New York could cost about $70 billion but will cut down on the pollution from air travel and wear on highways is difficult to quantify. Of course, the same argument was made for the already in place and yet-to-be-profitable Amtrak. Spending $530 million on arts, music, theater, and dance classes in public schools, as is available on a Budget Hero card, also has its advantages. Students instructed in the arts score higher on the SAT or ACT, and students with resources to practice their talents are less likely to participate in drugs or gangs. Teaching music and art in school might simply make people experience more of that unquantifiable 'happiness' too. Or perhaps teaching clarinet will make all opera houses more profitable in the next decade.
Regardless the virtue or advantage of one program over another, even if it is quantifiable, the argument that the government should not be 'in business' and in particular industries remains. But certain work just doesn't seem to get done without a government presence or a government carrot. Come July 20th, it will be 40 years since a footprint was first put into moon dust. Being able to reserve a room with a view in a lunar crater would be an excellent indicator of America's prowess, regardless of whether the hotel's subcontractor was employed by NASA or Motel 6. But the resort industry has yet to make that giant leap or small step. Surely the American people should discuss laying the groundwork for the future, even if it comes with an installment plan.
Again one of Budget Hero's fringe cards just happens to feature a viable class of solution to this debate. Under the science and nature category, one can choose to
"[give] $300 million to the first person or company who can produce a cheap, commercially viable car battery to run plug-in hybrids or electric cars that are as powerful as our current vehicles. The battery should be available at 30 percent of current costs."
While an odd inclusion, it and the tactic has merit. It's like the X-prize on steroids. Government awards for specific inventions are not unheard of, in 1714 England's parliament offered (in today's dollars) a $4.5 million award to any inventor of a clock that could function on board a ship. Existing clocks used a pendulum which was upset at sea and mariners required a reliable time piece. John Harrison invented the long sought after marine chronometer.
Thus, America's good battery may not be too long in coming. When the battle is over efficient baiting of progress, a $300 million check is a far cry from trillions of dollars. 
Particularly for an economically valuable invention, a technology development that need not be in government run, government monitored labs, and an environmentally helpful end product all in one. Moreover, it helps the viability of cool concept cars.
