As I was wandering the streets of our nation’s capital
yesterday, a headline on a USA Today newspaper in a
vending box caught my eye. Not because the story was news to me,
but because it was actually top of the fold on the front page of
the most “mainstream” of newspapers.
The article was titled: “U.S. funding for future promises lags
by trillions,” and subtitled something like “Government obligations
now $527,000 per household.”
When the media for everyman starts understanding just how dire
our fiscal situation is, and starts telling everyman that it is so,
those in political power — especially those seen as particularly
responsible for, or ineffective in dealing with, the problem —
should be running scared.
And while Republicans of the past decade surely have much to
answer for, this isn’t your father’s Republican House of
Representatives, and everybody knows it. The GOP freshman class is
very large and they don’t (yet?) have the Potomac Fever which has
caused us so much harm in years past. They’re still angry with John
Boehner’s compromise on the 2011 Continuing Resolution, with many
of them believing that the deal ended up cutting a minuscule amount
of spending. They’re channeling The Who: “We won’t get fooled
again.”
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has given us the impactless
but expensive cash-for-clunkers, home loan modification programs
and tax credits, and of course the massive failure of the
“stimulus” which has stimulated nothing but the growth of the
federal government’s reach and cost.
President Obama lost the tax debate, as he should have, when he
agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for all brackets. After all, if
the economy improves (which it won’t while suffocating under the
wet blanket of Obamacare and this administration’s EPA, NLRB, FCC,
and Department of the Interior, just to name a few), a strong
argument would be made that low and consistent tax rates were of
benefit and shouldn’t be tinkered with. Alternatively, if the
economy continues to sputter, Obama has already conceded that
higher tax rates would doom any potential recovery.
Therefore, between Obama’s December agreement and the current
GOP’s absolute refusal to go along with any increase in income tax
rates, that particular policy disaster is likely to be held off for
some time.
Democrats in Congress, however, still dream for an even more
“progressive” system even if it doesn’t generate increased revenue
for the government. The fact that they’ll keep trying for a tax
rate hike means that upcoming debates over spending and the debt
ceiling will be even more difficult than they otherwise might
be. Obama will agree with them even though he’s basically the
guy who killed any chance of a tax hike; it’s the old story of a
broken clock being right twice a day, and wrong the rest of the
time. (Don’t forget, Obama is the guy who said that he would raise
capital gains taxes “in the interest of fairness” even if he knew
in advance that the hike would not generate increased revenue for
the government.)
My ongoing theme for the 2012 elections is like Coke’s: “the
real thing.”
When members of both parties were spending money like drunken
sailors (a comparison which is truly an insult to drunken sailors),
voters said “hey, if we’re going to elect a government of
big-spenders, let’s go with the real pros, the Democrats, and not
those GOP Johnny-come-latelies.”
When the as-mainstream-as-possible USA Today is talking
about our having debt problems, voters will want the real thing
when it comes to cutting spending, and that bodes extremely badly
for Democrat electoral hopes in 2012.
Soquel by the Creek | 6.8.11 @ 5:32PM
The situation is even worse than it appears. That "$527,000 per household" figure makes the incorrect assumption that all households pay an equal share of the debt.
As we all know, a minority of households will be stuck paying SIGNIFICANTLY more than $527,000 while others will pay little or nothing--despite having equal voting power at the ballot box.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.8.11 @ 11:05PM
Soquel,
You're mostly right.
Of course it's true that some taxpayers will pay much more than others. And many will pay nothing at all.
However, with debt that big, current taxpayers have to get a little fear that there's no way the US can pay the debt only by soaking the rich -- which is the fact.
So while the debt per household isn't really an accurate number, it's more relevant than you give it credit for.
John| 6.8.11 @ 11:35PM
No, the rich dudes have more voting power. They can buy the gullible and stupid people's votes with advertising
Paul McGrath| 6.8.11 @ 11:53PM
The rich actually bought votes for Obama. GE, big green, foreign investors, unions, banks, many more. You really must make an effort to try to find out things for yourself, other than rely on . . . well, tell me. Where do you get this?
Jmaquis| 6.8.11 @ 8:49PM
To the Moderator: Would you please delete my first submission that had a sentence structure error?
Many thanks!
John| 6.8.11 @ 11:33PM
more tax cuts for the filthy rich. That will solve the problem.
Paul McGrath| 6.8.11 @ 11:45PM
Hi John,
The entire taxable income of every single American earning 100K a year or more--not their taxes, their income--is about 1.58 trillion dollars a year. If the government were to confiscate every dime of this, it would not pay for one year's worth of government deficit. We have a major problem, kid, and you are not getting it.
Ross Kaminsky | 6.9.11 @ 7:49AM
I have an idea, John. Make the rich poor and then try to get a job.