Posted on 03/02/2005 11:27:09 AM PST by jmc813
In 1994, I packed my suitcase and went to Washington with dreams of changing the world. For the class of 55 GOP freshmen elected that year, the unifying goal was to bring fiscal discipline to the federal government.
For a time, that dream seemed achievable. We balanced the budget within just a few years, reformed welfare, and brought new levels of efficiency to Congress and to many agencies in Washington's byzantine bureaucracy.
Oh, what a difference a decade makes.
Here we are in 2005. Like an out of control consumer who cuts up his credit cards, pays off his debt, and immediately digs a new, deeper hole, the federal government is back in the red - big time. We're spending on everything from B-2 bombers to Viagra for Medicare recipients to indoor rainforests in Iowa.
The deficit is back with a vengeance, Social Security is slowly going bankrupt. And, once again, we're leaving our kids to pay the bill.
So, what happened to those class of '94 revolutionaries? Like me, many are now doing something else. Even the jefe maximo of the Republican revolution, Newt Gingrich, is spending his time on the speaking and consulting circuit. Official Washington has no appetite for change, so it's no surprise many of us don't work there anymore.
Other budget cutters from that class of '94 now show signs of becoming budget busters, according to a recent analysis by the National Taxpayers Union. Instead of fighting the red ink, they're seeing how much deficit spending they can direct toward their districts.
In a sense, it's hard to blame them. Playing outsider on bill after bill gets you little more than sleepless nights, bad hometown press, retribution from party leaders, difficult re-election battles and fewer lucrative job offers when you leave Congress.
The key problem is that many in Congress think of themselves as representatives but rarely as statesmen. The only way to survive over the long term is to cater to the wishes of their constituencies. And the American public has sent them the same, clear message they've been sending for generations: Open the spending tap as wide as possible, consequences (and rhetoric to the contrary) be damned.
What are the consequences? The simple fact is that if you're a taxpayer under the age of about 40, you're getting the worst financial deal that any generation of Americans has ever received from the government. Your taxes are high now, and they're only going to get higher. Your parents and grandparents will benefit from government-funded health care and retirement stipends, and you'll be left to fend for yourself. The high level of services the government currently provides will drop off as revenues decrease and spending rises. Fiscally, it's the equivalent of being the designated driver and still picking up the bar tab.
If the next generation of Americans wants to change this situation, there are at least three things they have to do. First, get involved in politics as a voter and, more importantly, as an activist. So long as our system is dominated by voters who drive late-model Cadillacs, get a 15 percent senior's discount at Shoney's and never miss an election, it's their interests that are going to get attention, not yours.
Second, don't let your opinions about a single divisive social issue - whether it's gun control, abortion or gay marriage - blind you to the reality that your pocket is being picked no matter what your ideology.
And finally, don't become so wedded to a party label that it obscures the fact that big spenders in Washington spend hugely regardless of party label.
Im surprised that he is not showing better leadership on this subject and on our borders. Still, I'd like to know how bad our deficit really is relative to our GNP and future GNP.
nick
Where's the incentive for the illegals to sign up for this program? Right now they don't pay taxes and they can come and go as they please. Hell in California soon they'll have driver's licenses. As for tracking we can't track people on visas now so how are we going to track the millions of infiltrators once the door is legally open? If being an advocate for border security and anti-illegal infiltration of our country makes me a Dem, sign me up!
I watched Greenspan testify before the House Budget Committee this morning. According to Congress, mandatory spending is now at 55% and at this rate we'll be at 67% within, I think, 20 years. W made a start with the cut of 150 programs for FY06 but that's just a start and more needs to be done. I think we can all disagree on certain points and still like and support the President. I certainly do.
But Greenspan knows what he's talking about and mandatory spending needs to see real net reductions. NOW. I don't think anyone here on FR is saying that we should cut back on the War on Terror or hold national security hostage to a budget. But there are just too many pork projects on both sides of the aisle that have nothing to do with the War on Terror. W's NCLB Act is focusing on education at the wrong level. State and local levels need to be revitalized to get our school students back at the top of the industrialized nations. Greenspan saw that as a major problem. I agree. It's embarrassing!
Bob is the man.
a very little man
OK, what's the good side?
Easy deficit is only 350/11000 or about 3.4% of GDP.
National debt is only 40% of GDP and very low. This is why ten year treasuries are only 4.38%
Soc Sec is not included since it has already been repudiated twice and will be again if it is not privatised. Just raise raise the retirement age to 80.
40% of GDP?
You still haven't provided an answer. We'd all love better border security but does anyone think it will happen? How do you propose we stop them?
Th good side is Reagan was right. Lower taxes lead to economic growth which leads to more tax reciepts.
I've never really forgiven Barr for helping Clinton out. If Barr hadn't shot his wad prematurely and started calling for an impeachment looooong before it was time (like well over a year) then Clinton's "witch hunt" defense wouldn't have had near the credibility that it had.
There is an increasing number of moderates posting at this site, most of them seeming to support big government as long as someone with an 'R' next to their name is doing the spending. So much for the "revolution".
"National debt is only 40% of GDP and very low."
That's where I have the problem. I do not call 40% very low. We need to see absolute value cuts in mandatory spending. W's 150 cuts are a start but, when you step back and look at the staggering numbers, they are underwhelming.
But will Congress even put most of those cuts through? When will we finally hold Congress accountable? In 20-30 years the majority of them will be dead and it won't matter. I however don't plan to be and I have to live with this junk yard dog they've created, Big Government.
the actual treasury DEBT is, yes.
Dont get me wrong. I want the cuts too.
But I dont want to tank econ growth of 4/5% per year by being draconian.
So the first prio is to keep taxes low and cut spending in that order.
But we need a budgeting process similiar to the base closing process wrt to spending based on the merit of the project rather than political power of the rep.
I understand what you are saying-the aboslute number is high, but we are much better off with 11T econ and 4.4T debt than say 7T econ and no debt.
IT IS CRITICAL TO KEEP GROWTH AT 4%/5%. Otherwise we go into a tax base death spiral like detroit.
We could drop our debt to 20-25% of GDP by not lowering taxes and cutting spending ( which I am for). But at what cost? Thats right, cost. Say our treasuries only go down to 4% or 3.75%, big whoop. I would much rather have the growth and liberty from cutting spending AND taxes.
So I would advocate lowering the debt by 1% per year over 15 years to 'feel good' and leave some capacity for an emergency like a nuke hit (real emergency)
Now how do you know if your debt is high? Well Japan is think like 150% of GDP and Italy was well over 130% at one point. Our debt was sky high after WWII and we grew out of it. The way to know if you have too much debt ( just like in real life) is to look at your credit rating and the comeasurant cost of capital or interest rate.
Therefore, I am for cutting spending so ther we can cut taxes and grow the econ even faster and have more liberty rather than trying to pay off the debt too quickly.
"Here we are in 2005. Like an out of control consumer who cuts up his credit cards, pays off his debt, and immediately digs a new, deeper hole, the federal government is back in the red - big time. We're spending on everything from B-2 bombers to Viagra for Medicare recipients to indoor rainforests in Iowa.
The deficit is back with a vengeance, Social Security is slowly going bankrupt. And, once again, we're leaving our kids to pay the bill."
Doesn't he mean that the booming economy that started booming well before then grew the economy to the point where the government's tax revenues outstripped their spending? That and they raised taxes while the economy was booming, becuase they couldn't control their spending.
They balanced the budget? Only by ignoring the implied debt of future Social Security payments which our government is committed to paying out, but haven't figured out how to pay for yet.
The other way the helped "balance the budget" was to gut the military and not give the soldiers cost of living increases so they ended up earning less than the poverty level. THis resulted in us having to spend obscene amounts of money now to fix the mess they made of our military.
The Congress exibited very little fiscal responsibility 10 years ago, but were able to look good because the economy was growing. The trend of the economy growing started well before many of them were in office, and they have little evidence that they did much to help it on it's way.
However many of the significant reasons we are not dramaticly increasing our national debt are due to things they handled poorly during that time.
He's taking the credit for the actions of others, and pushing the blame for his actions on others. He should be ashamed.
Dont worry about soc security unless you actually need the money befor you are 75 or 80. The 1960 nestor v fleming case effectively allows congress to repudiate this liability at any time with no market repercussions.
If congress were serious about soc security, it would have been funded with treasury bonds, which could not be repudiated, since our bond rates would go sky high.
Dont think congress can repudiate soc security, well it already has-TWICE. The retirement age for me is already 67.
In addition, the government will eventually impose 'means testing', raise the age, reduce the bene or worse ( raise payroll taxes).
Because there is no real credit consequence, there is no reason to include this debt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.