This is clearly not a party-based problem. In the past 9 years, presidents and congresses led by both parties have overspent at an alarming rate, and even when Bill Clinton balanced the budget, he still didn't erase national debt. Surprisingly, the National Debt actually increased from $4.167 trillion in January, 1993 to $5.716 trillion when Clinton left office in 2001. This, of course, does not account for things like inflation or how much GDP increases, and as such, the good people at zfacts.com have produced a graph to show national debt in relation to GDP with inflation.
Clearly this kind of debt is unsustainable, as most conservatives will be happy to point out. But what they don't seem to want to discuss is how to fix it. Meanwhile, liberals have been quick to point out that they aren't the only ones who did it, and anyway, running at a deficit is not out of the ordinary.
While running at a deficit is absolutely normal, what is abnormal is attempting to live like it's not happening. As shown in the graph, the only period in our economic history where discretionary spending was on an incline comparable to now was the Great Depression, in which time, contrary to the Tea Party activists claims, we ran the most severe deficit in American history. During this time of social and economic unrest, the government asked the people of the United States to do something. It told them that things weren't going well, and that the government would do everything in it's power to right the ship, but that it needed the help of the American people. This help came in many forms, from buying locally to help the economy to enlisting in the military to help us win the war in which we were so deeply entrenched. But one of the most significant requests made was that of money.
Taxable income over $200,000 was taxed between 80-94% during the World War II years, and remained as high as 91% as late as 1964. This period could hardly be considered solidly bad times in America, but rather we were being ambitious, and to be so ambitious, we needed the help of our richest people. Even lower tax brackets went up from 4% to 19%, an increase that has greatly been sustained and even increased, while the richest do not pay their notably absorbent rates while still benefitting the most from the same system. It is also notable that this kind of tax code sustained itself through both Eisenhower administrations and stayed as high as 50% through most of the Reagan administration. The 2009 rate for people making over $372,950 is 35%. So much for oppressive taxes the likes of which we've never seen before.
Another major revenue winner during WWII was U.S. Treasury Bonds. "War bonds," as they were often called, raised $185.7 billion during the war effort. When you consider that federal spending in 1945 was $106 billion, having all that bond money was probably a good source of borrowed revenue.
The bond, (which is in a different, really inferior form today in the EE bond), pays an interest rate that is frankly not as good as other places you can put your money. The stock market will serve you better in many cases. But the bond isn't really about that. It's about lending the government money they need. Because if they don't borrow it from us at a low interest, they will borrow it from China at a much higher interest, and we'll be paying it back no matter what.
It is only logical that the government start spelling out clear sacrifices that the American people need to make, including investing in the future of the nation, making cutbacks in various social programs, expanding other social programs (i.e. health care and education), and cutting back on wasteful spending in the Pentagon and on private mercenary groups (the Obama administration has notably taken a step in the right direction on the last of these by refusing to renew the federal contract with Xe Services/Blackwater Worldwide). More than anything, though, the government has to be willing to tell it's people that you get what you pay for. If we as a people are unwilling to pay for things we believe we need, we can't have them. You can't have the biggest military in the world if you want to pay the lowest taxes in the world. You can't have a health program that actually helps people if you're not willing to pay for them, and you can't sustain the spending of a nation ad nauseum unless the people themselves are willing to do their part.
So here's what I want to hear the president say: "Things are bad. They're going to get worse. To solve it, I don't want you to go shopping and spend money you don't have on things you don't need that send American dollars overseas. What I want you to do is invest in the future of your country. I want you to accept higher taxes so your grandchildren don't have to pay for programs that benefit you. I want you to put some of your savings in federal bonds so that we can get out of this crisis while borrowing the minimum amount of our deficit from foreign nations that would use that leverage against us in the future, and I ask you to support local businesses in your own community, as they are the ones that revitalize a flailing economy. I also ask you to send your sons and daughters, and yourselves, into national service, either in the military or, if you are not in favor of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, or any array of private organizations across the country that do meaningful work to better the lives of those who need it."
That is what I believe to be responsible, and anything short of that is not good enough. I don't care what party you're in.
(note: the budgetary statistics used in this post are from TreasuryDirect.gov)
1 comments:
update: It was brought to my attention that the graph embedded in this post was not completely visible. To fix this, I changed the blog template. Hope that helps.
Post a Comment