When you borrow, at some point in the future, you have to pay back or return whatever was borrowed. Among the most significant reasons for our current economic mallaise is the fact that many people do not concern themselves with this fundamental principal. Normal citizens sometimes put too much on their charge cards and end up in a position where they have to sacrifice something in order to pay off their debt. In the past decade, many people bought houses that they could not afford but they hoped that a combination of inflation in values and ever increasing wages would make this minor problem go away. Politicians have made decisions to offer pay and benefits to government employees that they could not sustain or support with current revenues. They offered an ever-increasing number of social programs that bought them votes but which helped break the budget. Very few of our elected officials stood up to reality and made due within their budgets. The result? Today we have a National debt that is equal to our Gross Domestic Product, but, the debt is growing and the GDP is not.
One of the biggest factors in a strong and stable currency is faith in and respect for the government that stands behind that currency. When we consistently prove to the world that we are not responsible with our money and continue to build up debt, we will suffer loss of respect and loss of the value of our currency. If we are to avoid economic and government collapse, we need politicians who have the nerve to live within budgets. If you want to read a sobering , but I think very accurate discussion of where our economy is going, please read this. One graph in the article I think is worth reproducing here (actually many are, but you can get that by reading the article):
Let’s try a simple exercise. You are a homeowner, a mom, and a commissioned sales person. Your income varies because of the nature of sales and the commissions generated by those sales. In good months, you can make $10,000 but some months you barely make $2,000. Because of this, you budget for a low average income of $3,500 per month. Along with your husband’s steady salary at the auto parts factory in your town of $3,000, you have a comfortable and stable situation. You are consistently able to pay your taxes, pay your mortgage, pay your utilities, keep your old car running, and feed and clothe your family. In good months, you put away money for things you really want, but, don’t need. Vacations, a new car, a new patio in the back yard, the kids college fund are all things for which the savings may go. You don’t need any of these things but most of the family agrees that many of these things are worthy of the sacrifice needed to save for them. In spite of intense pressure from your teen-aged son, you have no plans to spend any of the savings on a car for him when he turns 16. If he wants a car, he can earn it himself. Sure, lots of other kids will get cars when they turn 16 but that doesn’t make it a responsible choice for you. Your responsibility is to provide for your family’s needs, not cater to their wants.
I think that is what our elected officials should be doing: providing for our needs, not our wants.
Please take the time to watch an elected leader doing the right thing. It is Governor Chris Christie speaking to his Legislature less than two months after taking office. If most of our elected leaders had the guts and the principles of this man, we would have few of the serious financial uncertainties that we face today.
It is refreshing and a hopeful sign to see a leader facing the problem and taking responsibility. If other State leaders and the country’s leadership in Washington, D.C. could do the same, we would be a long way toward being healed. I would vote for a leader like this in a minute. Unfortunately, our leadership seems focused on finding new sources of revenue and selling more debt to the rest of the world. How long will the world view both our government as Responsible and our currency as Reliable with leaders continuing to spend money that they do not have?
For my money, the position that must be taken by a candidate for whom I will vote is one of thrift, living within our means.
14 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 24, 2010 at 8:43 am
Ben Hoffman
Yep, Reagan tripled the federal debt and Bush doubled it. We’re now paying nearly half a trillion dollars a year just on interest on the debt. After the economy stabilizes, the Reagan/Bush tax cuts need to be repealed.
March 24, 2010 at 9:37 am
ttoes
Thanks, Ben, for your comment.
I think you have missed my point a bit. I also think that your comment is the type of oversimplification that adds little to the debate. Attributing the deficit spending to a President is ignoring the fact that it is the Congress that spends the money. I will admit that the guy at the top (maybe a woman some day) should have enough power to make things go his way much of the time and as such should shoulder some of the blame. However, it has often been the case where a President of one Party has presided over the country while a Congress of the other party has held the purse strings. In these cases, partisans want to blame the President if he is of the ‘other’ party when it is more likely the Congress of the partisan’s party that did the damage. In my view that would be the case with your example of Mr. Reagan.
My post, however, was pointed at Politicians in general. I want to find the traits and past experience that show a candidate to be thrifty. In my view, if we find enough of those candidates and elect them, we have hope of turning around a culture of tax and spend in our government.
Tom
p.s. I still think you have the best avatar of any I have seen.
March 24, 2010 at 10:32 am
Ben Hoffman
[Attributing the deficit spending to a President is ignoring the fact that it is the Congress that spends the money.]
Reagan and Bush were responsible for the tax cuts that resulted in the enormous deficit. They cut taxes without first cutting spending. It’s as simple as that. Well, actually, Reagan may have truly believed that revenues would increase enough to compensate. It just didn’t happen. It has been proven time and time again that Reaganomics doesn’t work.
What we need is a balanced budget amendment. If presidents want to cut taxes, they first have to cut spending.
March 24, 2010 at 11:10 am
ttoes
Ben, It is not my point to argue, but, if we are to discuss this, it would be helpful to work toward a positive outcome. It appears your point is to place blame. My point is to say that we need politicians who understand thrift. You insist on blaming Presidents, like Mr. Reagan, who signed the tax bill (the Economic Recovery Act of 1981) which was passed by Congress. It also seems to be your point to state that tax cuts are not incentives and that they do not work to increase economic activity and therefore tax revenue. You may find that prior to Mr. Reagan, in the 20’s the “Mellon Tax Cuts” and in the 60’s the “Kennedy Tax Cuts” both did essentially the same thing as the “Kemp-Roth” Bill did in Reagan’s time – they reduced the marginal rate of high-end tax payers, and, increased their total share of income taxes paid. In my view, you are wrong on both counts: you have blamed the wrong people, and, the tax cuts did increase revenue from those whose rates were cut.
Back to the point I wanted to make – would you argue that we would be worse off if we elected politicians who were thrifty? The only argument I have ever heard against such people is that they fail to allow special interests to have their pet projects (which increase government involvement in our lives and spend more tax dollars).
Now your point that we need a balanced budget amendment is one we should consider. I believe most states have such and though it does not seem to stop state governments from spending more than they have, it does force them to bring things back in some semblance of balance at least once a year.
March 24, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Ben Hoffman
[It appears your point is to place blame.]
Well, yeah. If you don’t look at cause, you keep making the same mistakes.
[the tax cuts did increase revenue from those whose rates were cut.]
I have yet to see any evidence of that. After Reagan’s initial tax cuts, he rolled back tax cuts on the middle class and almost every year after that, raised taxes:
1982 – The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Repealed much of the tax cuts of 1981, raised unemployment taxes, doubled taxes on cigarettes, tripled taxes on telephone service.
1982 – Highway Revenue Act of 1982 increased the gas tax through 1988
1983 – Social Security Amendments of 1983. Increased Social Security taxes.
1984 – Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. Increased taxes on exports and business expenses.
1986 – Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986. Decreased individual taxes but increased corporate taxes.
March 25, 2010 at 8:02 am
ttoes
Ben, I still believe that the tax cuts made at various times by our government have acted as incentives. From what I can find, when taxes are cut on higher income earners, they tend to invest more, earn more and in the long run pay more tax. During the 80s tax cuts, “The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.” (from http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm )
I do agree with you that we need to look at the causes of our current deficit problem. That, however, is different than assigning blame. My opinion is that the causes are many and pointing the finger at one political group is not a worthwhile exercise. Rather, I would like to see, as I have argued in this post, voters elect people who are thrifty by nature. Such people, in my view, would pay more attention to the dollars and cents of their decisions than has been done by most elected officials for the past many years.
March 25, 2010 at 8:53 am
Ben Hoffman
[During the 80s tax cuts, “The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988.]
That’s true, but the reason is not because their tax rates went down. It’s because their wealth increased dramatically during that period at the expense of our federal debt.
March 26, 2010 at 10:33 pm
ttoes
Ben, You said, “…the reason is not because their tax rates went down. It’s because their wealth increased dramatically during that period at the expense of our federal debt.”
I guess I would be curious to know why you think or what your source is that has you believing that “their wealth” increase was at the expense of the federal debt. If you agree (“that’s true”) that the amount of taxes paid by the top ten percent of earners went up, that would imply they paid more in tax. How would that be at the expense of the federal debt? In fact, the only way there can be an increase in the debt is if the politicians spend more than the tax revenues. I don’t know how to relate that to “their wealth increased dramatically during that period at the expense of our federal debt.” I do know that electing politicians who can and will stay within a budget will eventually lower the national debt. My argument is not one of class envy. It is one of identifying traits that will improve our chances of finding appropriate political leaders.
March 27, 2010 at 7:03 am
Ben Hoffman
[If you agree (“that’s true”) that the amount of taxes paid by the top ten percent of earners went up, that would imply they paid more in tax. How would that be at the expense of the federal debt?]
Initially, they paid less, which enabled them to accumulate more wealth. As their wealth increased, they had more power to do things like buy up other companies and outsource those jobs overseas, or eliminate many positions, or drive competition out of business, and influence legislation to allow them to reap more profits.
[In fact, the only way there can be an increase in the debt is if the politicians spend more than the tax revenues. ]
True, but they cut taxes without cutting spending and instead, increased spending. Taxes should only be cut when there is a surplus. The could create a surplus by cutting programs, but many of those programs are popular and they don’t want to risk political capital in cutting them.
March 27, 2010 at 11:47 am
20 issues – 40 weeks « Responsibility-Freedom Demands It
[…] 14. Government Spending/National Debt […]
June 9, 2010 at 3:59 pm
20 – 40 (issue #20) Your Favorite Issue Goes Here « Responsibility-Freedom Demands It
[…] 14. Government Spending/National Debt (was Issue #5) […]
July 15, 2010 at 12:10 pm
20 – 40 (Issue #8) – The Environment « Responsibility-Freedom Demands It
[…] care was #1, Jobs was #2, Taxes was Issue #3, Agriculture was #4, Government Spending/National Debt was #5, Commerce was #6, Energy was #7. We also did #20 – Your Issue goes here. On that one we […]
October 6, 2010 at 4:24 pm
“20 Issues – 40 Weeks” Less than 4 weeks to go…HELP!!!! « Responsibility-Freedom Demands It
[…] 14. Government Spending/National Debt (was Issue #5) […]
October 26, 2010 at 12:05 pm
20 – 40 Unfinished Business « Responsibility-Freedom Demands It
[…] 14. Government Spending/National Debt (was Issue #5) […]