Posts Tagged ‘national debt’

h1

Want Smaller Government? Let’s Have Fewer Politicians

11.30.10

I’ve heard some of my conservative friends calling for smaller government saying that they want fewer government workers, fewer government jobs and more private sector jobs. They complain about how much more money government employees make versus the average private employee — although, they never do give specifics on just who they’re angry about: teachers? postal service employees? DMV attendants? city clerks?

How about elected officials?

I’d be curious to know if anyone would be in favor of this: let’s get rid of some of those nearly 500 representatives. These people get amazing pensions, fantastic health benefits, nice salaries all of which cost us taxpayers quite a lot of money.

Rather than cutting programs which all of us like — because, let’s be honest, who of the population truly wants less Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security?  A huge majority want all of those things intact – including the defense budget, which is currently at $700 BILLION dollars, the most since WW2 – even if they also want to cut spending.  No one wants the safety net if they’re not aided by it at this very moment by terrible circumstances or just, y’know, life; but, threaten to take it away and people will freak out.

So, let’s keep with the idea of cutting government and go right to the source: the politicians who are in government.  I mean, think about the money saved if this guy weren’t in government. Since the country is polarized nearly 50-50 these days, with the Independents just switching sides every two years to halt any momentum from either side (and to keep their Independent monikers), would it make much of a difference if we just chopped it down to 300 reps?  250?  How many representatives do we need, sucking up taxpayer dollars, enacting those dreaded earmarks that are crushing our grandchildren with excessive debt from which they’ll never recover?

While we’re at it, do we really need a Vice-President when we already have a President?

And since the Republicans are the more cohesive of the two parties, save for a few (Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, and a few others) who occasionally tempt the Democrats by possibly voting the other way, they are in lock-step agreement with each other to vote the same way on nearly every single issue.  Rather impressive, actually.  But, since that’s the case, do we need so many?  I mean let’s get rid of half and the party’s votes would still be the same. Of course we’d get rid of half of the Democrats, too — the ones who all vote the same way, anyway — to keep things even, since that’s what we love here in America: things fair and balanced.

Who’s with me?

Image courtesy of Diliff – Wikipedia Creative Commons

h1

Bank of China Credit Card: America’s Love/Hate Relationship with Borrowing and Spending

10.22.10

Why is it such a huge, vital, cut-all-spending-now situation with regard to our nation’s economic woes?

I get it: being in debt is bad. You end up paying a fortune for something because of all the interest that you then owe to your lender. (Trust me: I have credit cards, I know how it works.)

And there’s a lot of talk about how we’re “running up the credit card” with regard to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, the bailouts, and TARP. But it’s not really on a credit card. Right? We don’t have creditors actually knocking down the doors of the Capitol Building.

I’m being snarky here on purpose because people (myself included) talk about the debt as if we know to whom this debt is owed — China, right?  My point is that the way our government spends money it doesn’t have is different from how you or I spend money we don’t have. And the repercussions are different.  I don’t imagine that Hu Jintao is on the phone every month calling up President Obama saying, “Yo, Barry, you didn’t make the minimum payment last month of $233,588,838.35.  Do you know when you’ll be able to pay that?”

Also – we’re in a society that is based on borrowing. The reason our economy is still sluggish is because there isn’t much lending going on to small businesses (some banks being very tight with their lending practices and people not wanting to borrow money to expand/start their businesses at this point in time), therefore not many new hires.  (Well, it’s a reason.)

But, it’s rather bipolar to want the economy to get going through increased spending and borrowing while at the same time blaming spending and borrowing as the reason why we’re in this whole mess to begin with.  So spending and borrowing is both good and bad — but right now, all we hear about how bad it is to spend, how bad it is to keep borrowing.  No wonder the economy is still moving at a snail’s pace!

I have no answers.  I’m merely positing issues that I’m seeing and issues that I’m dealing with in my head.  I would love some clarity on the economics of this because that’s one subject on which I’m not very knowledgeable.

h1

Why the Bush-era Tax Cuts Should Expire for the Richest Americans

07.25.10

The Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire at the end of this year.  The Republicans want to continue them; the Democrats want to let them end.

NY Times:

Democratic leaders, including Mr. Obama, say they are intent on letting the tax cuts for the wealthy expire as scheduled at the end of this year. But they have pledged to continue the lower tax rates for individuals earning less than $200,000 and families earning less than $250,000 — what Democrats call the middle class.

To put this in perspective, this means that the Democrats — the party typically in favor of higher taxes to pay for their penchant for more government programs — aim to keep the tax cuts for nearly 98% of Americans, while letting the unfunded, deficit-increasing Bush tax cuts lapse for the richest of earners.

This seems like the best course of action for a number of reasons:

  1. The one group of people that don’t need financial help right now are the top 2%, the richest Americans who despite the economic recession that has left millions jobless — and even threatened with being denied continued unemployment benefits — the rich, while having lost wealth, have already rebounded.  In fact, the “millionaire class held a larger percentage of the country’s wealth [in 2009] than it did in 2007,” meaning that the rich are richer now than before the recession, at which time the top 1% of raked in 24% of the nation’s income.
  2. I don’t find higher taxes on the wealthy to be a form of punishment regardless of the economic climate.  It’s like Warren Buffet said: “If you’re in the luckiest 1 percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.”  No one gets to the top alone.  And no one at the top should ever forget about everyone else in the middle and at the bottom.
  3. The overwhelming majority of Americans, those making under $200,000 per year, the supposed middle-class and below, the group most affected by the sub-10% unemployment rate (but by some accounts could be upwards of 20%), can’t handle having their taxes raised.  They simply can’t afford it.  (Now, one could argue that $200,000 per year earners could afford it, but arguing about where the middle class to upper class cut-off lies is a different blog post.)
  4. It’s estimated that the tax cuts on the top 1% could cost upwards of $40 billion.  Since this action now falls under the Pay-As-You-Go rules, the cuts can’t simply be paid for by adding to the deficit.  For those who want to continue the tax cuts, I find it appalling that resources would be found to spend that kind of money on millionaires, meanwhile millions of people still can’t find work.  There has to be countless better ways to spend $40 billion during a time of record national debt than handing it over to the richest people in the country.

This is a society.  We work together.  We need each other. We don’t live in a vacuum, where we are only affected by our own choices.  Individual responsibility is extremely important, but we are a collective, as well.   And right now, the rich don’t need the help; everyone else does.