 |
| What? Me worry? |
A Trillion. That's a one with twelve zeros behind it. The number is so huge that the human mind
cannot comprehend it. A Trillion seconds
is equivalent to over 681,000 years. Yet, the U.S. government deficit - outlays
minus revenues - will exceed one $Trillion dollars this year. And next year. And for several years afterward, according to
latest estimates. Divided into a
population of 300 million, a $Trillion works out to over $3,300 for every man,
woman, and child in the U.S. And remember:
this is just the DEFICIT, not total spending, which is four times that amount.
Here's a brief history of U.S. budget
deficits, from White House.gov. The U.S.
government budget has vacillated between deficits and surpluses for a good chunk
of its history. The first $Billion-plus
deficit happened in 1919, but was followed by several years of surpluses. Beginning around 1931, $Billion-dollar deficits
every year became the norm, with a few surplus years here and there. $Ten-Billion dollar deficits kicked in around
1942, and then $One-Hundred-Billion dollar deficits became the standard around
1982. There were some actual surplus
years from 1998 to 2001. But in 2002,
the $Hundred-Billion dollar deficits came back to stay, and have grown steadily
since. Oh how I miss the good ole days when deficits were measured in mere Billions of dollars!
 |
| Rome |
Off-hand, one would think that this is a
serious matter that demands fixing. A
nation cannot survive for long under the unbearable weight of out-of-control
debt and deficit spending. There are many
historical precedents of wealthy nations and empires that collapsed thusly. (See:
Rome.)
So
what are our politicians doing about it?
Here is a comprehensive list of actions
being taken to reduce the debt: (empty list)
Mad Magazine's iconic character Alfred E.
Neuman, pictured above, had a great motto:
"What, me worry?" Your
typical politician is as concerned about spiraling deficits as our Mad friend.
Here's my prediction: $10 Trillion-dollar deficits will happen by
2030. And $100 Trillion-dollar deficits
by 2040. (What comes next? Quadrillion?)
Remember: you read it here first.
Understand that TALKING about deficits
and making campaign PROMISES to reduce them is not the same thing as actually doing
it. Republicans are horribly guilty of
this. They bill themselves as "The Party
of Responsible Spending" or "The Party of Smaller Government" and
such, but that's just talk. Donald Trump
himself, in a campaign speech in April 2016, promised that the $19 national
debt would be "eliminated" in eight years. We all see now how that turned out. But unfortunately, that's pretty much the
norm for Republicans.
Meanwhile, the Democrats cheer on the deficit. Their economic theory, for some bizarre
reason, holds that deficits are actually good - something about "economic
stimulus". If that was true, then
what the heck are taxes for? Wouldn't it
be so-much-simpler to abolish the entire tax-collecting apparatus of government
and just pay for the entirety of spending via deficits?
Unfortunately, the cold hard facts are
that people - voters - want it both ways.
People love their goodies and bennies and freebies and other tax-supported
special interests. Everybody has pet
government projects and programs and other "good causes" that make us
feel like government accomplishes great things.
And deficit spending is a painless, no-brainer way to have our cake and
eat it too. We get everything we want - and
then some - but don't have to pay for it via taxes.
You are probably thinking: aren't there some politicians out there who
recognize the scam of deficit spending for what it truly is, and offer up credible
and convincing plans to restore fiscal sanity?
Absolutely. Most elections have
them - candidates who would immediately, upon being elected, cut government budgets
down to 5% of present size. Or less. But those kinds of politicians are ignored or
branded as crazy lunatics, and typically only get about .00000001% voter interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment