Panic may be gripping that minority of Americans who pay more than passing attention to the operation of the federal government. As a pair of Washington Post writers put it, the “Obama administration will have to decide whether to delay — or possibly suspend — tens of billions of dollars in Social Security checks, food stamps and unemployment benefits.”

That’s a suspiciously selective list of options to reduce federal expenditures.  The Social Security fright-note is especially selective, inasmuch as the money for Social Security comes directly from FICA taxes, and when there isn’t enough there, the rest comes by cashing in Treasury debt for the money the federal government spent out of the infamous “lock box.”  As Treasury pays Social Security back, it reduces its debt by that amount, leaving the government free to borrow it from some other means and remain under the cap.

It’ll be important to keep in mind, if the feds whack their heads on the ceiling, that cuts are their choice.  If Obama decides to withhold food stamp money, it’s because he thinks other spending (such as future golf trips with Tiger Woods) is more important.  The media being what it is, that point won’t likely be made prominently.

But there is an important truth underlying the article: “Economists roundly agree that no matter which course Obama chooses, a drop in federal spending that large would exert a huge drag on economic growth.” As I’ve been pointing out for a while, growth in the U.S. economy has long relied heavily upon national debt.

I expect history to prove that those round economists have it backwards: The singular focus of public policy must become unleashing economic growth, with federal spending as an afterthought — mainly something that gets in the way.