Few would deny that the new U.S. president, Democrat or Republican, will face a plethora of concerns and problems after reciting the oath of office in January 2009.

One issue that sort of presents the 'problems panorama' in a snapshot has, curiously, received light news coverage lately -- is the U.S. budget deficit.

Time was, just a short decade ago, the federal budget was in surplus. However, in 2001 a federal tax cut occurred. That fact, combined with required spending for the war on terror / Iraq War, and the absence of a tax increase to pay for that increased spending, has primarily led to a projected $553 billion deficit for fiscal 2008, which ends September 30, 2008, and a $403 billion deficit for fiscal 2009, which begins October 1, 2008, according to Congressional Budget Office research (pdf).

Three factors that could balloon the deficit

In the view of many, the existing deficit is large -- but still manageable -- in the context of a $2.9-3.0 trillion federal budget. However, three factors could markedly increase the budget deficit in the immediate years ahead, and in doing so add to the new president's woes, economist Richard Felson told BloggingStocks.

First, there's the U.S. economy. If it falls into a recession (if it hasn't already), federal receipts (such as corporate and individual income taxes) will decline from current projected levels, and social program costs will increase, "adding $20-$50 billion to the deficit," Felson said.

Most Americans realize that every new U.S. president, upon taking the oath of office, faces his/her share of economic problems, none of which originated on his watch.

President John F. Kennedy spoke to this when he said (and someone said it before him), "It's true. Life is not fair. Some men go to war, and others remain at home. Among those who go to war, some men are sent to the front lines, while others stay behind. It's true. Life is not fair."

Still, although each age has seen its share of formidable economic problems, the scope, seriousness, and systemic impact of economic problems facing the new president, be it Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, may represent the biggest economic decisions since those President Franklin D. Roosevelt confronted upon taking office in the depths of the Great Depression in 1933.

What's one issue likely to give the president more gray hair? The kinds of systemic reforms to lobby for, on the heels of the federal housing bailout of Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) following the collapse of the housing market and rise in mortgage defaults, said economist David H. Wang. The housing bailout will further increase the U.S Government's annual budget deficit, which is expected to reach $490 billion in Fiscal 2009, Wang said.

The lowdown on the high and rising U.S. budget deficit for investors and readers? A triple whammy: higher prices for imported goods, higher interest rates, and higher taxes, among other negative consequences.

The budget deficit is expected to increase to $490 billion in Fiscal 2009, which begins October 1, 2008, Bloomberg News reported Monday. The increased shortfall is due to a worsening U.S. economy, which lowers government receipts, and spending increases for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the housing bailout, among other spending responsibilities.

Increased spending to pay for the housing bailout, including assistance for Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) will further increase U.S. Government borrowing, and the supply of dollars, "which almost guarantees that the dollar will fall more," so says currency trader Andrew Resnick. As a result, companies exporting goods to the U.S. are likely to raise their prices, a cost increase Americans will feel keenly.

However, Resnick said the dollar is likely to fall less, if the U.S. government increases taxes or the Fed increases short-term interest rates.

Yesterday I received a great comment from long-time reader Dr. Michael Schneider of barrelomoney.com. He wrote:

Every market has buyers and sellers-- so far it seems the remedies for the housing mess have been directed at helping the banks and homeowners (sellers) and, rightly or wrongly, propping up housing prices. This has the effect of helping those who created the mess or who profited from it while possibly hurting potential buyers-- including 1st time home-buyers who may have to pay higher prices for homes that may still be overpriced.

This may seem like fairly obvious point but it has profound ramifications: it's been completely missed by the people who are supposedly working to solve these problems. Propping up home prices delays the inevitable reversion to something resembling intrinsic value, and prices first time home buyers out of the market.

This was one of the effects of the subprime bubble as well: lax lending prices that made homes available to people with brand new SUVs and double-digit FICO scores made it difficult for people who wanted to do it the right way: work hard, save money, and make a 20% down payment on an affordable home with a 30-year fixed mortgage.

When you think about it like that, you have to wonder why there is so much resistance by supposedly reasonable politicians to just letting the darn prices come back down to earth: it's a zero-sum game, and lower home prices will help just as many people as they hurt.