Pretty good editorial, but I would take exception with two things.First, the analogy has the Democrats offering better benefits to passengers by
"making the wealthy ones do more work." A more apt analogy would be that
they are trying to get the wealthy to spring for a bigger motor, so the boat has
enough power to move upstream.Second, I don't know where
Evensen is getting his numbers, but debt, which just passed the $16 trillion
mark, is greater than 100 percent of GDP, which was $15.09 trillion in 2011 and
is expected to be about 2 percent higher than that in 2012. The only time when
debt was a larger percentage of GDP was at the end of World War II, and we got
that under control primarily by retaining a top marginal tax rate of over 90
percent. It helps to have a bit of revenue (a larger motor) when nearing the
Jay have you ever listened to a Paul Ryan speech. Please, the Repubs entire
campaign is focused on the issue of the bad economy, the Obama
Administration's making a bad situation worst than even GW with regards to
deficit spending. Guess if you have not heard it is no wonder average Americans
are not getting the message.
Romney and Ryan have talked about the debt and the economy and how to correct
it. Obama can't even make a budget. When the GDP is exceeded by the debt
the economy will suffer. We need a balanced budget bad.
I believe Bill Clinton talked about the debt situation last night saying either
we have to take care of the problem "or it will take care of us."
Watched This Week with George Snuffleupagus, featuring a bi-partisan panel
discussion on this very issue. Both sides agreed--when our side wins the
election, we'll deal with this issue from a position of strength.
Irresponsible? Sure. But letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be altogether
a good thing.
Why won't either party talk about the fiscal cliff?1. Because
we are in the middle of an election. 2. Because Congress can't
work together primarily because the Republicans are beholden to Grover Norquist
and have sent too many ideologues to Congress.
Why won't they opposing parties talk about the fiscal cliff? It's
because they don't know what the cliff looks like. Economics professor
Laurence J. Kotlikoff, who served as a senior economist on President
Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, says the national debt discussed by
most people is just the tip of the iceberg. The rest of the iceberg is the
unfunded liabilities which are kept off the books. He calculates those
liabilities to be in the neighborhood of $222 trillion, which Jack Mintz of the
Financial Post says puts us in a worse position than Europe. Some would say that
we've already gone over the cliff but we just don't know it.
We're sure to, though, once we hit the rocks at the bottom.
The opposing factions are hopelessly deadlocked and there are no Benjamin
Franklins in view - nor Roger Shermans.
Why does our government continue to get larger? Why do we need multiple programs
to support people (i.e. social security, medicare, medicaid)? Why do we continue
to give hand-outs and not a hand-up? How about we start slashing money to
programs, start over, and live on less than we make?
The fact is, that intelligent people and even some dumb politicians know that
the national debt has zero effect on what the national government can and will
do. Never has and probably never will. The fuss about the national
debt has been going on since the beginning and the only time we hear about it is
the complaining of one party against the other. In business, debt
is a tool. It is sometimes used to buy companies, buy facilities and stores,
and even to rob companies. And very often to rob taxpayers. If you are looking
to a businessman to be concerned about debt, you are wearing blinders.
This is one of the better editorials written by a member of the DN staff. I do
have to take exception to the claim that the current Administration has failed
to acknowledge the looming issue and failed to propose a viable solution. My
impression is that the Obama administration fully recognizes the problem, but is
approaching the solution in a thoughtful, measured way, recognizing that drastic
actions may cause worse problems in the here and now for the entire country!By contrast, Romney's camp seems short on solutions, instead
putting forth "the sky is falling" rhetoric with the best of the chicken
Littles, but failing to provide any viable solutions other than hyperbole,
abstract "principles", and nebulous assertions that have no grounding in
reality.I wish it were otherwise! I am a lifelong R!