In our opinion: Rep. Ben McAdams' balanced budget amendment is remarkable and frightening

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    April 19, 2019 12:04 p.m.

    Balancing the budget sounds great but do a lot of austerity measures will not only hurt a lot of people but will actually cripple the economy. Obsessing about the debt could really be a bad move. Yes, we need to take some measures to cut some spending and raise revenues but it has to be smart. The Balanced Budget Amendment is not a smart move and any real study of Macro Economics shows this.

  • dulce et decorum est , 00
    April 13, 2019 2:34 p.m.

    All of those so worried about the national debt would do well to become truly acquainted with Modern Monetary Theory as explained by its serious proponents. This obsession with the national debt obscures the real problems our country faces.

  • Cougalum St. George, UT
    April 13, 2019 10:45 a.m.

    Let’s not drink Hemlock. The board is wrong. The proposal is neither remarkable nor frightening. Every representative and senator knows the proposal will never pass since neither side will pass it. They all know this is for show for the people back home to convince them that the sponsors are responsible and independent. By the way, has this paper ever applauded a Utah Republican for proposing or supporting this idea?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 8:31 p.m.

    Unrepentant progressive, made this wise and true comment: "We let profitable Corporate America pay little in taxes and are hostage to the rapacious Health Care Industrial Complex".

    Well said sir/madam: I wholeheartedly agree with you, especially when it comes to what you said about our immoral and primarily profit driven American Healthcare system!

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 12, 2019 7:13 p.m.

    In my opinion:

    The United States of America is in the "grab the money and run" phase that every nation experiences. There is no intention of ever paying back the National Debt.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    April 12, 2019 5:49 p.m.

    @Makid: "I don't get why entitlements as they are called need to be heavily reformed. Remove the Income Tax Cap on Social Security (include it in stock sales), set a hard income level for receiving benefits. "

    In other words, you consider it a major change in the Social Security contract to raise taxes while simultaneously massively cutting benefits to those who are then paying the most into Social Security? This is exactly why we can't get to a balanced budget: Everyone wants someone else to take all the pain.

    On the plus side, if you means test people out of social security benefits, political support will wane and maybe we could get the real reform we need. As is, SS forces far too many to retire poor.

    Put 13% into a private retirement account and you'll retire with income equal to your lifetime earning average. Put 13% into SS and you'll get a pittance back.

    Raise the SS eligibility age closer to average lifespan. Reduce military spending while pushing allies to pay their fair share toward their own defense. Reduce other welfare benefits. Impose income taxes on those not paying them. And reduce regulation to grow the economy. We have record income. Our problem is spending

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 4:53 p.m.

    "It then says tax cuts add to the debt. That isn't correct. If tax cuts result in increased tax revenue, they decrease the deficit created by the spending and therefore don't add to the debt."

    Inflation leads to there being more revenue almost every year. Like if we do nothing at all revenue will keep going up without a tax hike at all. What the tax cuts do is make the increase in revenue less than it'd otherwise be and that missing hole would continue onwards. The tax cut bill was estimated to add about 1.5 trillion to the deficit over 10 years but it'd be in a form more like "we got 100 billion less in 2018 because of the tax cuts, and then 110 billion less in 2019 than we'd have gotten otherwise... and so on and so forth).

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 4:47 p.m.

    @Daniel L
    "Social security, medicare, & medicaid account for 60% of the federal budget."

    In 2018 social security was 24%, Medicare 14%, and Medicaid 9%. That only adds up to 47%. There's another 14% that is mandatory spending (that appears to be your 60%) but it's not those three programs. It's things like unemployment, food stamps, Veteran retirement etc.

    Payroll taxes are pointed to Social Security and Medicare, so if your 36% of revenue is correct then it's 36% of revenue for those two vs 38% of spending for those two (of course there being a large deficit means there's a revenue gap even if the percentages are about the same, it's just that at the moment it is proportionally a problem rather than a dominant imbalance).

  • AlagnakLounger Heber City, UT
    April 12, 2019 3:45 p.m. 4/12/19

    "Alan Greenspan says economy will start to fade ‘very dramatically’ because of entitlement burden."

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 2:49 p.m.

    McAdam's proposal is frightening because it addresses reality and politicians are not supposed to do that. It is remarkable because the left is embracing modern monetary theory which says it is impossible to spend too much. Maybe it is surprising because McAdams is more of a statesman than a politician, right or left.

  • IJ Hyrum, Ut
    April 12, 2019 2:02 p.m.

    These comments have been wonderful to read. I came to the realization that this is what needs to happen. A group of people with ideas get together and say, "this is what needs to happen" and all involved mold the ideas into a working model. There needs to be cuts into federal spending. Is it in military, welfare, pork, jobs, etc.? There needs to be a tax increase on ... by how much ...? working across the aisle and coming up with a workable program. But it needs to happen now. I support a balanced budget and accountability. If congress is not willing to do this work then we need to elect people who will. Start with term limits. Then maybe people won't be so unwilling, thinking what if I don't get reelected? If they can't be reelected, maybe they will do the right thing.

  • Daniel L. Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 12:48 p.m.

    You simply can't tweek one thing here and one thing there to balance this monster. Everything and everyone will have to fell the pain in order to spend within our means. Taxes will have to go up, and spending will have to go down. There is no easy way out of this one - and the longer we wait the greater the pain will be.

  • Daniel L. Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 12:32 p.m.

    It is discussions like the ones on this board that seem to completely ignore all financial reality of the federal budget.

    Total federal budget is $4.746 trillion
    Social security, medicare, & medicaid account for 60% of the federal budget.
    Interest on the national debt is 10% of the federal budget.
    Military and all other spending is 30% of the federal budget.

    Total federal receipts is $3.645 trillion.
    Income tax 50%
    Social security, medicare tax 36%
    Corp taxes 7%
    Tariffs 4%
    Federal reserve earnings on holdings 2%
    Estate tax and other 1%

    Therefore, Social security and medicaid taxes only bring in $1.3122 trillion is deficient by $1.5354 trillion in our spending. It only accounts for 36% of insufficient revenues but is 60% of the federal budget. In other words, payroll tax doesn't even cover half that expense.

    The largest growing federal expense on the federal budget is interest on the national debt which accounts for $479 billion or 10% of the federal budget.

    Everything else - military, national parks, border security, etc. is 30% of the federal budget.

    Their simply ain't no way on God's green earth you can balance the federal budget without impacting entitlements.

  • clwnuke Park City, UT
    April 12, 2019 12:19 p.m.

    Wouldn't it be nice if Congress commissioned the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to set an absolute yearly spending threshold based on paying the debt over the next thirty years and expected actual tax revenues?

    Once the CBO sets the maximum spending cap based on real numbers, then Congress can argue about what to spend it on and tax rates for the future as long as they like.

    This way, politics is taken out of the budget cap determination and focused narrowly on the taxing and spending process itself. A political win-win for spineless lawmakers.

  • ADifferentView Park City, UT
    April 12, 2019 11:40 a.m.

    I think it's already too late to avoid eventual default on the debt, but the only way you will ever get Congress to face this budget leviathan is by tying re-election eligibility to balanced budgets.

    A simple amendment like: "Members of Congress shall not be eligible for re-election if the debt of the United States increases during their current term in office."

    This would align their self-interests with the financial interests of the nation. Neither Orrin Hatch's proposals nor Rep. Adam's would have done this.

  • abishai Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 11:19 a.m.

    I am astonished that your recent editorial called it a 'frightening' prospect for our country to live within its means. You seem to believe that our nation is entitled to having other nations pay our bills by continuously lending us money. Whenever people or nations choose to live beyond their means, a day of reckoning always comes. A good recent example is Venezuela, where they have hyperinflation, currency collapse, hunger, and a disintegrating social order. If our country follows the same path, we can expect the same very frightening consequences.

  • There You Go Again St George, UT
    April 12, 2019 11:19 a.m.

    The irony of this piece is that the people who put trump in the WH will be the ones who suffer the most when cuts to SS/Medicare must be made to pay for trump's massive wealth transfer to/tax cut for the wealthy.

    As written elsewhere the republican political cartel has morphed from fiscal restraint and family values into the spend at will and who cares about integrity, ethics or morals as long as our guy who is the epitome of none of those values is in the WH.


    Thank you Ben for at least attempting to bring some sanity to what has become of the republican political cartel.

    Thank you Makid @4/12 10:34 am above for your coherent presentation of one way to stop the madness that has become the republican political cartel.

  • Elsleuth Valencia, Ca
    April 12, 2019 11:16 a.m.

    Selfishness and greed are at the heart of this problem both in Congress and with us as Americans. We want our piece of the pie irrespective of how it affects others or whether it makes economic sense or not.

    I don't see any solution to this problem. We as a nation will run off the edge of the cliff and everyone will suffer. In some ways that will be a good thing, a reality check. It will bring us back to our senses and then we can vote in people who look after the interests of all Americans.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 12, 2019 10:56 a.m.

    To "FT " but Obama care wasn't paid for. It has added to the debt. See "Thanks To Obamacare, Government Debt Is Worse Than You Think" in Forbes.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    April 12, 2019 10:36 a.m.

    "But frightening because Republicans generally don’t want to talk about fiscal responsibility any more and many left-leaning Democrats are pushing for huge spending increases for things such as universal health care. Neither party, it appears, stands for fiscal responsibility. "

    Given that Democrats paid for Obamacare with increased taxes and reduction in Medicare reimbursements this claim is false. I hear Democrats who want Medicare for all talking about it being financed thru increased taxes. Republicans consistently increase the debt and increase spending while cutting taxes. Let's be truthful, the GOP is way more irresponsible when it comes to our national deficits and debt and the facts clearly support that.

  • Makid Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 10:34 a.m.

    I don't get why entitlements as they are called need to be heavily reformed. Remove the Income Tax Cap on Social Security (include it in stock sales), set a hard income level for receiving benefits. Increase Medicare tax by 0.01%, remove any income tax caps and allow Medicare to directly negotiate drug prices.

    This sets both SS and Medicare up for success for another 100+ years.

    Cut Military Spending to what it was in 2000. Cut excess bases if needed. We did it in the 90's, we can do it again.

    Raise a new top level income tax of 50%. This would impact any gain above $10,000,000 annually. By gain this includes income, interest, stocks, etc. that someone may receive. This revenue goes exclusively to debt reduction.

    Remove ALL Federal deductions except the Standard Deduction that is in place today.

    Raise the Federal Gas Tax $0.25 and set it to automatically increase with inflation annually.

    The budget is now balanced. Any additional spending must be accompanied by a tax increase if existing revenue doesn't fully cover the new spending.

    Exceptions for War and Depression only for debt spending.

  • liberal larry Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 10:29 a.m.

    One of the bedrock principles of republicans used to be fiscal conservatism.

    It seems like they are selectively discarding their principles in an attempt to appeal to a shrinking demographic base!

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 10:10 a.m.

    "Truly balancing the budget would require major restructuring of all entitlements as well as revenue enhancements, most likely from a tax increase."

    The most important word in that sentence is the first.

    Dishonesty and a deliberate denial of the truth is the root of our deficit/debt problem, as it is with virtually every other problem.

    We've been able to float above the inevitably negative consequences of living beyond our means as a nation for a long time. But, the inevitable day of reckoning with reality **will** come. And, because we, as a voting public, are unwilling to abide by the more unpleasant truths of our profligate national spending and vote for more people who will fight for honest fiscal responsibility in government into office, we will undoubtedly suffer greater adverse consequences than we otherwise would had we simply been honest with ourselves sooner.

    We, collectively, are the problem.....and the solution.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 10:07 a.m.

    @What in Tucket
    "The tax cut actually resulted in a modest increase in tax revenue. "

    Inflation caused the increase in tax revenue. The tax cut is why you had to put in the word modest.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 10:03 a.m.

    "But frightening because Republicans generally don’t want to talk about fiscal responsibility any more and many left-leaning Democrats are pushing for huge spending increases for things such as universal health care. Neither party, it appears, stands for fiscal responsibility."

    One of the first things Dems did was reinstate paygo rules and what do you think all their calls for tax increases are for? It's to fund these things.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 12, 2019 10:00 a.m.

    If we could no longer create money by borrowing more and more from the Federal Reserve, we would soon run out of many of our dollars.. because we have a trade deficit. The then limited supply of dollars would soon mostly in the hands of other countries.

    Dollars would become scarce, and people who are in debt would have more and more difficulty paying off homes, cars and credit cards.

    If we are going to make a change, let's get rid of the Federal reserve. We could then still create needed additional dollars via the U.S. treasury without having to pay interest on those dollars. If the government didn't have to pay interest, taxes could be lowered quite bit.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 12, 2019 9:35 a.m.

    Here's one thing that most people don't seem to realize. Tax revenue flowing in to the federal government increases every year, except during recessions. Why? The economy grows, the population grows, and there is some inflation. So we had a tax cut and revenue increased by 1/10 of 1%, and people say the tax cuts produced more revenue. What is left unsaid is that absent the tax cut revenue would have increased by 4% or more. All the Republican tax cuts over the past 35 years have increased our deficits. If we want to spend 22% of GDP on our federal government, we should be willing to tax 22% of GDP. It's simple arithmetic.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 12, 2019 9:32 a.m.

    "Truly balancing the budget would require major restructuring of all entitlements as well as revenue enhancements, most likely from a tax increase."

    Duh. The United States was already the most undertaxed of the top-tier OECD nations, by a long stretch, before the GOP's big tax giveaway to the wealthy. We definitely need to "restructure" entitlements, but not the way most Republicans think. We have 10,000 Baby Boomers retiring every day, a good portion of them without any retirement savings or pension. All that money has been redistributed to the top. So we can't really cut Social Security or Medicare. Medicaid is also untouchable, since we already leave too many poor and disabled without health care. What we can do is increase the income cutoff for FICA taxes, do some means testing, and maybe increase the age for receiving Social Security.

    But what we most need to do is increase taxes on the wealthy to where they were before Reagan. If you want to trace the genealogy of our massive debt, look no further than the Reagan, Bush, and Trump tax cuts. The wealthy have made off like bandits, while the rest of us and our children are left to pay the bill.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 12, 2019 9:30 a.m.

    To "Red Smith" that wouldn't work because Congressmen make more money through other ways outside of their government paycheck.

    If you wanted to get them to take the deficit and debt serious, you would have to make it hurt. One way would be to give Congress until 2029 to balance the budget. Then, after that if the budget wasn't balanced those members of Congress would no longer be allowed to hold any public office (elected or appointed) or work for any government agency at any level either directly, or as a contractor, or as a consultant, or work for any lobbying group. The work restriction would remain in place for the remainder of their lives.

    To "EmmanuelGoldstein1984 " but military spending is about 16% of the total budget? The gorilla is Health and Social Security spending, which is an entitlement that takes up 54% of the budget. There is another 13% of non-discretionary spending that goes on. Maybe we should look at the 67% of the budget that we don't have much control over before we start destroying the military budget.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 9:29 a.m.

    I'll tell you what is frightening: we are approaching an economic system which will soon deny both health care and retirement to the bulk of our population. Some version of socialism must be in our future.

    I have been reading "Cuba, Anatomy of a Revolution" by Huberman and Sweezy. It is relevant because we are closing on a setup which will simulate Bastista's Cuba: complete concentration of wealth at the top and a corrupt dictatorship (taking shape now in the form of Trump). Like it or not the Castros show the way. They remain popular in Cuba because millions have lives there who would not have had opportunities under Batista and they know it.

    The future is loaded with pitfalls. But have a more comprehensive look around.

  • rustopher West Valley City, UT
    April 12, 2019 9:04 a.m.

    The tough part, as many have said, is deciding what to cut. Easy to say cut military, but how many individuals and families rely on military for their job? Not just the soldiers and support, but all the businesses surrounding a base that feed families? Easy to say cut social programs, but how many truly needy people will end up on the street?

    The point is, someone is going to be hurt. Someone's pet project is going to be cut. As with anything, everyone agrees cut needs to happen, but then when it's a program or service that directly or indirectly hurts you all bets are off. We are all ok, as long as it's someone else.

    Let's not forget, as soon as a program is targeted say public broadcasting, those voices get really loud. I may be off, but it almost seems like the programs that serve the fewest have the loudest outcry.

    Which plates are we willing to drop before the whole cupboard falls to the floor?

  • AlagnakLounger Heber City, UT
    April 12, 2019 8:53 a.m.

    This is the most important issue of our time and look how fast this article has dropped off the front page. That tells you everything you need to know. The D News algorithm has detected reader interest in this issue and has dropped it from page one to obscurity in less than two hours. Again, we the people are the problem.

  • Yemulus Richardson, TX
    April 12, 2019 8:38 a.m.

    The article points out that tax revenue increased after the tax cut, but the government spent more money than it took in. It then says tax cuts add to the debt. That isn't correct. If tax cuts result in increased tax revenue, they decrease the deficit created by the spending and therefore don't add to the debt. Spending more than you have (borrowed money) is what causes deficits and debt.
    The Republicans in Congress should take this opportunity to get back to fiscal responsibility if there are Democrats concerned with this problem. Seems like a chance to put away useless partisan politics and to do some real work to solve a serious problem. It may lead to fighting over spending cuts for specific programs, but that is what compromises are for, as long as they don't compromise the goal of balancing the budget.

  • bikeboy Boise, ID
    April 12, 2019 8:33 a.m.

    Rep. McAdams' balanced budget proposal isn't remarkable or frightening - such proposals are good campaign fodder. Every two, or six, years you can count on hearing the same thing: "Send me back to Washington to fight for a balanced budget." Yeah, right. When Orrin started using that mantra we were billions in debt; now we're trillions in debt.

    What WILL be both remarkable and frightening is the day of reckoning... when the House of Cards tumbles. Maybe we can give our debtors our public lands, national parks, etc., to settle up. There will be weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, particularly from those who are totally dependent on Bankrupt Big Government.

  • fatherof7 Hurricane, UT
    April 12, 2019 8:32 a.m.

    Jonathon Gruber, architect of Obamacare, hit the nail on the head when, describing the "obfuscation" in the wording of the bill was necessary due to "the stupidity of the American voter."

    As long as we continue to elect spineless politicians whose inability to lay aside partisan politics and pie-in-the-sky ideology in the interest of what's best for ALL Americans, the national debt will continue to roar uncontrolled down the tracks

    The perceived problems with climate change, lack of universal health care, illegal immigration, etc., etc. are minuscule compared with the social chaos embedded in America's inability to pay the bills.

    Give me a politician whose character is not destroyed by the lust for office.

  • F Alger Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 8:27 a.m.

    This is the best editorial in the D News all year.

    The leaders in Congress and the President are older and will not feel the full effects of the national debt. Perhaps there is less incentive to focus on something twenty to thirty years down the road.

  • swartzy1 Weatherford, TX
    April 12, 2019 8:18 a.m.

    I think we are going to have to do some hurtful things in society, just like I had to do , to prevent a bankruptcy back in the 70s when we were all laid off and jobs were scarce. It was not fun, it was not easy and it "hurt" for a while. It came so fast we couldn't prepare at all for it, but we made it through and now we are totally out of debt and go cash on most items.

    As far as the USA goes. there are some things that we had no choice over, like Social Security like a debt we were forced into. can't cut it back too far, at once it would overly harm people, and we would have to supplement with welfare .We can cut lots of things
    if we need to. IF we all work together and don't gripe and complain we could make it for a while with some bad streets, cutting back advancements in structure people making their own retirement fund, Quit buying new for GOVT needs , use what we have in storage, and it is a lot. Selling off all the empty GOVT. buildings we have combine some military bases for more than one arm of service. No $150 for toilet seats, buy them at Lowes, a line item veto on Pork . Stop allowing add ons to important bills etc. Yes we can do it, we have to.

  • pragmatistferlife Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 8:13 a.m.

    I know how the "budget" process works..yet I really don't know how it works.

    The President "comes up with"
    The Congress "comes up with" (simplified version)
    The Congress votes on
    President signs doesn't sign

    What is the "comes up with" process? I'm sure it's requests from agencies, and political intents.

    Are the agencies held accountable at all in this process for their requests? Why, this amount? And do we as the public have access to the whys?

    Personally I think a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility are two different things and shouldn't be conflated. In addition the idea that fiscal responsibility will require reductions in things like Social Security and Medicare are really, really dangerous to our social welfare in the future.

    However, transparent budgeting should be a thing.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    April 12, 2019 8:03 a.m.

    The problem with government spending is not necessarily the fault of our elected representatives.

    The problem is the American public. We want to spend trillions on the military, and trillions on basic governmental aid to the poor. We let profitable Corporate America pay little in taxes and are hostage to the rapacious Health Care Industrial Complex.


  • EmmanuelGoldstein1984 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2019 7:59 a.m.

    Odd that there's no mention of the 900 pound gorilla in the room -- military spending. We spend more on our military than the next seven nations combined, in part because we have more than 800 bases all over the world. That's where major cuts could and should be made, not on programs that are desperately needed at home like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

  • deseret pete Springville, UT
    April 12, 2019 7:35 a.m.

    I think there are ( or Should be ) more republican support for a balanced budget than Democrats. The real sticker will be where the proposed cuts come from to achieve the goal. I suppose that that gap is very wide even without seeing the proposal.

  • Red Smith , 00
    April 12, 2019 7:07 a.m.

    If we passed a law saying no Senator or Congressman would be a paid if the budget was not balanced or the gov't was shut down, that would fix the problem.

    Grand standing on a balanced budget amendment that is never going to pass an uncountable Congress addicted to debt is just political theater.

    The real fix is easy and ignored. The impossible fix of amending the constitution makes the news.

  • What in Tucket Provo, UT
    April 12, 2019 7:06 a.m.

    The tax cut actually resulted in a modest increase in tax revenue. The problem in deficits is spending. Can't restrain Congress.

    I am all for a balanced budget. Without it we are in for trouble.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    April 12, 2019 6:56 a.m.

    Hey, really appreciate the attempt at a balanced discussion on the real issue here. I appreciate issues based politics rather than party driven rhetorics.

    A couple of weeks ago Hannity went on a rant about how Democrats voted against the equal rights amendment in the south - calling them hypocrites. What he failed to mention was that southern Republicans equally voted against the right act. Conversely, in the North, Republicans and Democrats alike voted "for" the bill. It was an issue based vote, not a party based vote.

    Both sides can argue "what" the government spends the money on. But they can equally agree that the amount we spend needs to be curtailed and brought under control. They can index the spending growth against actual inflation or tax revenues and incrementally cut that ration down.

    Let them debate military versus infrastructure spending, or what ever issue or priority. But both sides should be able to agree on the larger issue that we are allowing federal spending grow too fast, and that growth needs to be less than revenue growth.

  • AlagnakLounger Heber City, UT
    April 12, 2019 6:42 a.m.

    With some notable exceptions, I believe that most of Congress does get it. They know this is a serious problem. However, they are so drunken with power that there is no way either party will touch any third rail of politics.

    They know that we, the American people, don’t want to accept that our debts and deficits are unsustainable. Even if our deficits were to go to zero today, the existing level of debt and unfunded liabilities will shortly consume the entire federal budget to service them. Current deficits will just hasten the day of reckoning.

    They know that if either party alone tries to fix the problem that we will punish them at the next election. We the people are the problem. We the people just want to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that all is well. Even if somehow by some miracle congress truly began dealing with this problem today, it would still be a very painful and long process for all Americans. Procrastination will only make the fall harder and the pain longer. But, we’d rather wait and pretend the day of reckoning will never come.

    So, back to our heads in the sand. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.