Get these FREE newsletters in your email!

Tony Blankley

See more great free newsletters
on the subscribe page.

Type your email address:

Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.

Religion:
Enjoy religious news and spiritual inspiration on the religion page
The Funnies:
Get free jokes, comics, and more! See them all on
our funnies page
Author Bio:
"McLaughlin Group" regular Tony Blankley has served as advisor and press secretary to Newt Gingrich, speechwriter and political analyst for ...

Read more about Tony Blankley.
Books:
Read the classics online or by email. More details on the books page
Games:
Fun online games, quizzes, hangman and more on the games page
Tony Blankley

Washington Is Nuts

Tony Blankley
Want to hear a real laugher? Despite the current disharmony in politics, there's one policy on which all of Washington agrees. Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, president and Congress all agree that after last fall's financial crisis, the federal government has to regulate the financial industry more closely to protect our economy from risk of systemic financial collapse.

Here's the joke. As boom- and bust-prone as high finance always has been and remains, the greatest systemic risk to our economy is not Wall Street. It's the growing federal debt (and weakening dollar) being enacted by those Washington politicians -- the ones who want to protect us from Wall Street.

It soon may be not a risk but a certainty of generations-long economic stagnation and hard times as a direct result of "unsustainable" and ever-growing national debt, driven by a federal budget almost half of which is to be paid for each year by borrowing money -- primarily from China -- and already weakening the dollar such that foreigners are trying to get rid of their dollars any way they can.

Don't take my word for it. In June, the Congressional Budget Office published "The Long-Term Budget Outlook," its summary reading in part: "The federal budget is on an unsustainable path -- meaning that federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. ... Rising costs for health care and the aging of the U.S. population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly. ...

"... Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress income growth. ... The accumulation of debt would seriously harm the economy. Alternatively, if spending grew as projected and taxes were raised in tandem, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States (highest marginal income tax rate so far: 94 percent, in 1944-45). High tax rates would slow the growth of the economy, making the spending burden harder to bear."

And yet the same Congress and president who want to stop the banks from taking too much risk cannot stop themselves from ever more deficits. Indeed, so intoxicated -- nay, hypnotized! -- by debt is the current government that it is not even proposing to try to cut back.

Last week saw, at the same time: 1) the world shuddering about the debt-driven weakening dollar ("The biggest story in the world economy is the continuing fall of the U.S. dollar, or at least it is everywhere outside of Washington, D.C., the place most responsible for its declining value." -- The Wall Street Journal) and 2) Washington cheering Sen. Max Baucus' health bill's spending levels ("Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis" -- The New York Times).

That's right. The federal government is giving the "green light" for the country to drive to the poorhouse -- and drive there, I would argue, by way of the lunatic asylum. Are they nuts? Consider a few details.

Before the Baucus health bill is enacted, $9.3 trillion of newly created deficit already has been added to the national debt. The Baucus bill is considered a triumph of careful budgeting because it may cost only $829 billion -- and will not add to that unsustainable deficit because it is to be paid for by cutting Medicare and other programs by about $400 billion and raising taxes primarily on health care insurance by about $400 billion.

Now, forget for the moment that even the Congressional Budget Office doesn't believe its own numbers. (Last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote to Baucus, warning, "Long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if those provisions were ultimately changed." That is, CBO must score the cuts called for by the bill. However, Congress invariably fails to actually implement the painful cuts, but it does keep or increase the benefits. That is why entitlement programs always cost much more than is predicted.)

But let's assume the numbers are real. This is still insane. Remember, until a few months ago, President Barack Obama insisted on passing health care legislation this year (during the economic crisis we are still in) because it would lower overall costs -- a necessary step for a return to a healthy economy.

But neither he nor Congress could design a bill that saved money. So they are settling for not adding to the "unsustainable" current deficit.

Here's a thought: As shrinking the unsustainable deficit is a critical prerequisite for a healthy economy, why not just enact the $400 billion of Medicare cuts and $400 billion of health insurance tax increases -- thereby reducing the 10-year deficit by about $1 trillion (when you count reduced interest payments) -- but don't provide the new entitlement benefits that were the purpose of the bill?

Helping out the uninsured might be a nice notion someday. But the first priority now is to avoid permanently destroying our economic capacity -- as we rapidly are doing -- by the insanity of adding to entitlement programs while the dollar begins to fail and the CBO predicts we never will recover from the current debt and deficit levels. So cut the 10-year deficit by that almost $1 trillion.

Then incrementally move the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security to 70 by 2030. That would reduce their costs by about 3 percent of gross domestic product, which is about what it would take to keep them functioning without bankrupting America. It's a start.

Stop the madness. Don't increase benefits; cut costs. Now. It's doable -- except for the fact that Washington is nuts.

========

Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington. E-mail him at TonyBlankley@gmail.com. To find out more about Tony Blankley and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Copyright 2009 Creators Syndicate Inc.

This news arrived on: 10/14/2009
Share this Story
Digg   del.icio.us   Yahoo   Facebook   Google   

Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment


Rate This Story:

Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad




Posted Comments:

10-16-2009 04:23
JCE wrote:



Actually, I don't believe in term limits. I believe in maybe an 80% approval rating, every 2 years for congress members, and maybe even a 2/3 of the voters voting to even seat the fool in the first place. Even the president could have to have a 2/3s approval rating in 2 years, and if not, the vp take over. Kind of like passing a fitness test. Now, it is just a con and money job. Maybe each state could come up with its own evaluation process. The other thing is a balanced budget. That would mean the politicians would have to listen to the people, and do what they want. Now, only a very small percentage of the voters can pick someone, and they can stay in and not represent the people at all. The trouble with term limits is that if you can get someone good, that most of the voters would want to keep, you would lose that person. And a good politician is too rare to want to lose. And most right now wouldn't even get a 50% approval rating, and would only serve one term. The other thing, is make their retirements and benefits like other government workers. Now, a politician can serve 2 years, and retire better than a person who works 40 years. Now, the politician has no real incentive to represent the people or the country, but a major incentive to keep on the public and special interest teat. Aren't most congress members millionaires? I don't think a millionaire could represent me.



10-15-2009 22:57
TruthInWords wrote:



can we all say TERM LIMITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let's give the [Bums] the [BOOT]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All self-serving Republican and Democrat [non-Representatives]........




Comment archive | Comment FAQ's

Post Comment::

Author:
Subject:



Recent archives Featured news

View Tony Blankley ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive

Featured Channel: Politics

The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ...