Nationally Irresponsible

           The argument for fiscal responsibility is one that has been tossed around by both political parties for years. Neither party can lay a claim to the title of "Fiscally Responsible", as since the end of the Vietnam war we have only established a surplus four times, which was when a Democrat was in the White House and Republicans controlled Congress. The country has gone through five Republicans and three Democrats since then and the current debt level stands at $12.5 trillion. There have been many causes for such a deficit and its ever increasing rate of increase. Both parties have embarked on deficit funded projects and have yet to seriously address ways in which to reign in the deficit.

           The annual increase in the federal deficit is the amount of money that the government spends on top of the total revenue it collects from various taxes. Last year alone the deficit was $1.4 trillion. Both parties make claims as to what needs to be done in order to reduce the deficit. Democrats will generally advocate for tax increases on the wealthy and cuts in Defense spending. On the flip side Republicans want spending cuts on programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Republicans and Democrats are both hasty to advocate for cuts that resonate with their base, even if what they advocate is not the solution.

           President Roosevelt created Social Security in 1935 to provide benefits to retired people who have contributed to their nation during their lifetime. Republican calls for dramatic cuts in Social Security in order to keep the program solvent, I believe, are misplaced. Social Security just ran a deficit for the first time, where it paid out more in benefits than it collected, due to the "Baby Boomer" generation retiring. Over the next ten years Social Security will add $200 billion dollars to the deficit, or $20 billion a year on average. In comparison the Republican Bush Tax Cuts, which were passed through Reconciliation, have added $1 trillion to the deficit over the past nine years. It is hypocritical to call for cuts in a program that benefits seniors because it isn't fiscally responsible while embarking on the largest fiscally irresponsible program in the past decade, matched only by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans wish to cut the program of benefits while the Democratic approach is vastly  different. United States citizens pay for Social Security through a "Social Security Tax" that appears on a pay stub. The tax is only payed on earnings up to $106,800 (which is only reached by the wealthiest 10%), as soon as an individual makes that much money in one year they no longer have to pay for Social Security, the Democratic approach is to raise that cap to $250,000. As a result Social Security would stay fiscally sound for more than one-hundred years. However neither party has done anything about it and can not be considered fiscally responsible as, as of now, the program is in the red for the long run.

           The current debt outlook is that over the next decade $9 trillion will added to the deficit, bringing it up to $21 trillion dollars. The fact that neither party addresses is that $4.8 trillion of that debt will be simply on interest the United States accumulates trying to pay off our current debt. By 2015 the interest the United States pays on debt will be $533 billion, which is one third of all federal income taxes. There are three main areas in which money is spent, the Department of Defense ($690 billion in 2009), Health and Human Services ( $790 billion in 2009), and the Treasure Department ($705 billion in 2009, which includes interest on debt). Democrats call for cuts in Defense spending for various reasons, the United States spends 47% of all Defense spending worldwide. The amount we spend would only be justifiable if we were at war with the entire world. At a local level Colorado pays $10.8 billion a year in Defense related taxes, that is the equivalent of giving every college student in Colorado a $54,000 scholarship a year. If Defense spending was cut in half everyone here at the University of Denver could get a $27,000 scholarship on top of all their current scholarships. Ideally if Defense spending were cut in half it would go towards lowering the deficit, the scholarship figures are simply to put in perspective how much we spend on Defense alone.

           Neither party has taken any significant actions to reduce the deficit. Democrats passed a deficit financed Stimulus package that cost $787 over three years, Republicans and Democrats passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program which cost $750 billion and lasted less than 6 months, while Republicans passed the Bush Tax Cuts which have already cost $1 trillion and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which have already cost $1 trillion. All of the programs were not paid for and simply added to the deficit. The only fiscally responsible package in this Congress has been the Health care bill which, if passed, would reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next ten years and insure 30 million more Americans. The package itself is tremendously moderate, it has no public option, no medicare expansion, and is in fact eerily similar to the package Mitt Romney (R) passed in Massachusetts and the bill Republicans offered in 1994 as a response to Bill Clinton's proposed Health care package.

           Simply put the deficit is continuously growing and neither party has enacted any of their proposed ways to cut the deficit. The proposals range from across the political spectrum, from spending cuts, to more affordable health care, to tax increases, yet neither party is willing to enact their proposals as the other party stands ready to blast them with propaganda to aid in the next election. It has gone from politicians doing what's in the best interest of their constituents and their country, to doing what's in the best interest of their re-election campaign in order to win in the most partisan elections in the history of our nation. Fault does not lie alone with politicians, the average American holds 134% of their annual income in debt, until the citizenry comes to terms with itself about their fiscal irresponsibility neither will politicians. Abraham Lincoln put it best, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Republicans and Democrats must find whatever common ground lies between them if America shall continue to stand.

3 Comments:

  1. emma.garrison said...
    Jordan,
    I really enjoyed this piece. You presented a very strong ethos by using statistics and informative facts to ensure your credibility. Through historical facts and presentation, you have come forth with strong points. However, I feel that your persuasion is not on one side or another, it simply states that both Republican and Democratic parties have embarked on our country’s deficit. I also found that you were arguing that neither party has taken extensive measures to recuperate from the large deficit our country faces. I really liked your concluding paragraph. I think you did a good job with the conclusion, especially with your finishing sentence. The strong and blatant statement of “Republicans and Democrats must find whatever common ground lies between them if America shall continue to stand” was extremely attention grabbing and was a good way to leave the audience feeling. Overall, great job!
    Geoffrey Bateman said...
    Thanks, Jordan, for your post here. I would affirm that you work well to position yourself as critical of both parties, and that this independent ethos helps you appear as someone who is more interested in solving this issue rather than someone who's invested in partisan politics.

    Some of the issues I'd like to see you as you revise. As Emma notes, you have included a wealth of information about this topic, but remember that I also asked you all to embed links in your post that serve as your citations. That is, when you cite your statistics, data, and other information, I need to know more clearly where this is coming from. Last, your paragraph on social security is interesting and I can see that it relates to your larger discussin, but I think you could frame it better by providing a stronger transition and then frame it more clearly as one of the more pressing issues that relate to your larger topic of the deficit.
    craig skelly said...
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Post a Comment