Our national debt is an anchor keeping our economy from growing. Does anyone disagree with that? So what do we do about it?
Like any shop-aholic we can not ask Washington to quit cold turkey, look how they are freaking out over the debt ceiling debate. But like any shop-aholic we can not give Washington an unlimited credit card. So I propose that we grant the federal government an increase in the national debt ceiling. Wait, don’t start throwing tea bags at me yet, listen to the stipulations I would place on that increase. I would allow congress to raise the debt ceiling with two stipulations:
- No new spending until the budget is balanced.
- A debt ceiling reduction schedule.
My point one is necessary because Washington can not take a rise in the debt ceiling as an opportunity to create new spending programs that will continue to drive our economy in to the ground. I think this is a nice barrier to put in the way of an over grown federal government while allow us to meet out debt obligations.
The second point is necessary because it would create a timeline to get our debt under control. I would say lowering the debt ceiling by $1 trillion a year until it is down to $0 starting in 2014. This gives the federal government time to clean up its books and stop borrowing more money before they are forced to start paying back the outstanding debt we have. There would be some fine print that restricts the raising of income taxes, but would allow closing tax loop holes that favor corporations and unions.
This plan accomplishes two things, it forces the federal government to balance the budget and to payback our debt. Could you image the strong economy we would have if we have no federal debt and a balanced budget? You can not even dream about the level of growth and prosperity we would see as a nation if we did.
Now is the time to go through the pain of 20 years of reducing government spending until we get to a balanced budget a zero debt. Tomorrow is the time for prosperity, tomorrow is for out children and grandchildren, tomorrow could be a brighter future if only we are willing to act like adults and be responsible with the federal government TODAY.
Clearly, just another right-wing Tea Party-ite who doesn’t care a bit about the hard-working middle class who built our country. You appear to support policies that would pull the rug out from seniors, disabled and the poor by cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other vital safety net programs. Equating corporations with unions, come on. At the same time you want to protect billionaires, millionaires and Wall St. hacks from paying their fair share in taxes. You seem to embrace failed policies of the past, such as trickle down theories where the only thing that has ever trickled down is more unemployment and poverty. Get real!
Really Larry? Please tell me you not so narrow minded as to regurgitate Olbermann bad one liners and think it makes a good argument.
You make so many ad hominem statements that I could do nothing but laugh. You may want to rethink you comment before people get the idea that there is no intelligence on the left anymore. Please tell me what I said that made you think any of the things you commented.
Not quite a tea bagger, but showing rampant desire to strip the nation of the ability to economically respond to problems created by economic bubbles, national emergencies or wars. Deficit reduction must be a combination tool, major smart cuts in spending, and major tax reforms which eliminate the political payola and favoritism which todays tax code fosters. Tax reform must also raise and direct new revenue to insure our nations social safety net and infrastructure are correctly funded for perpetuity.
@madashell999: I believe there is enough waste and bloat in the national budget that we can get our budget out of the red without cutting any necessary social safety net.
I would fully support revamping the tax system to close loop holes as long as it does not unfairly direct the tax burden on to the shoulders of job creators. We need to make sure it is financially beneficial to employ Americans to keep the tax revenue coming in.
Everyone thinks the national debt should be reduced. This is practically a no-brainer. One trillion a year in spending cuts? What could be easier? But you realize that a cut in spending means less entitlements, and that means sacrifice.
So what would you cut? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget) Medicare and Medicaid sounds so easy for people who aren’t receiving those benefits, although almost all of us will eventually. Most people can’t afford independent insurance. I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield through work, and it takes nearly $100 out of my weekly paycheck. I have it because I can afford it (barely), but certainly couldn’t afford it if all I made was Social Security.
How about Defense? Of course, most of that money goes into soldiers’ paychecks, which are necessarily high because otherwise no one would volunteer for such a suicidal career.
I could go on, but I won’t. The government only spends about $3.5 trillion a year, and there are lobbying groups and special interests that fight every single cut the government tries to make. And almost everyone draws from the government in some way, whether it’s through tax incentives for having children, or paying the paycheck of your elected representatives, or even just being guarded by a large and active army. It’s easy to say “we should spend less” and harder to say “this is the way to do it.”
Good quetion starcrashx, “So what would you cut?”
All though I disagree that we need to cut from entitlements, I think a reworking of the system would result in a reduced cost of providing the same level of welfare. But lets set that aside and discuss what I would cut.
First I would point you to Rand Paul’s proposed budget that would result in a balanced budget in 5 years. (http://www.randpaul2010.com/2011/05/senator-rand-paul-introduces-budget-resolution/)
It may not be perfect but its a better start then anything the Ryan plan or progressive caucus plan offers. But to be specific here is what I would cut for starters so you can comment on them:
1. Unnecessary federal departments. There is no need for a federal Department of Education. Education should be handled completely on a state and local level. Another unneeded department is Department of energy, again this is a state issue not federal. There are others but I will start the discussion with those two.
2. Redeployment of our troops. We maintain over 900 foreign bases that are unneeded, I know because I served in the US Army stationed in Germany. We should redeploy those troops stateside where they could work on national defense along our borders. This would also benefit our local economies from those soldiers spending their paychecks in America instead of some other country (increased tax revenue is always a good thing).
3. I would eliminate the federal subsidies program completely. Federal subsidies constantly raise the cost of whatever industry they are involved in. Here is a good report that talks about the issue of subsidies: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies
So lets start there. What do you agree and/or disagree with?