You are being too rational. I am for giving back the surplus to the taxpayers, but if you want to do so YOU MUST STAY ONE STEP AHEAD of the 'spenders'.
And to do that you must stay 'poor'.
Econ growth with erode your debt % away. Remember:
growth = new wealth = new buyer of treasuries = lower debt rates
If congress were to ever report a 'surplus' it would straight to amtrack or dingleberry research of the muskratt.
Then write in a clause saying that the surplus can go only to either debt relief or it must be given back. Or even better: half to debt relief and half back to the taxpayer. Of course I see what you mean about the "spenders." But I think I just answered that.
And while economic growth will lower the debt percentage, why not boost economic confidence (and thereby increase GDP growth even more) by taking a chunk from the debt while were at it?? Can't everyone see that the stock market (and therefore the economy) has been going through a kind of malaise since the elections. 10200-10850 back and forth and back and forth. S&P sitting squatly at 1200 and NASDAQ back and forth around 2000. Nothing going anywhere. Can't everyone see that this time coincides with the new budgetary proposals? I don't care how much Cavuto says BULLS BULLS BULLS - I think that this malaise, this semi-nervousness that I sense, would be cleared up by a move towards a -gasp- balanced budget.
Yes I know about the War and all. And W has the 150 cuts this year so that's a START. But it must continue until some year - NOT NOW because of the War - until say in 2 or 3 years it can finally be in the green.
Actually most of all the mandatory spending needs to be reduced in rate and actual dollar value.