I am fully in favor of a course of action that leads to the national debt becoming, say, less than half the GDP. (Hell, under Carter it was south of 40%.) Question is what that would entail and what would happen with it, as well as what priorities are more important and/or urgent than others. And honestly, the deficit is a problem, but not the biggest one we've got, especially because of how low bond interest rates are right now.
First priority: making the economy work right. That means putting several million unemployed Americans back to work. Giving the economy a real jump-start on that level isn't going to be easy, and it looks like it may require more government spending in the short term. Another problem we've got: crumbling infrastructure. We need that in good working order, and there's a lot of deferred maintenance that's coming back to bite us. It's a sound investment. Example: Spend City and Austeria both have a bridge that needs repairs, and they can't fund them with taxes for some reason. Spend City borrows the money and makes the repairs; Austeria does nothing. Fast-forward several years and Austeria's bridge collapses, leading to lots of injuries and property damage and a few deaths. Since they need that bridge, they have to rebuild it now, meaning they still have to borrow money, only a lot more than Spend City had to years ago. So even with the accumulated interest they've paid since then factored in and all the mayhem in Austeria not factored in, Spend City is still less in the hole than Austeria is now. Then there's climate change and all the catastrophes that could cause if we don't cut way back on fossil fuels.
This is not to say that everything the government is currently spending money on is something it should be spending money on, but from my standpoint it looks like "stuff that they need to be doing and aren't" exceeds "stuff they shouldn't be doing and are" by a fair margin, with the probable exception of the military. Now the question is how to fund it. Retire the Bush tax cuts, which didn't do us much good? That covers a good chunk of the deficit there. A few more tax hikes and/or new taxes would be good, too, though we'd need to be careful to put them in places where they won't cause too much trouble. (Human and economic trouble, not political trouble.) Close loopholes, do some audits. If my experience with this is anything to go on, it shouldn't be too hard. It probably won't balance the budget, but it'll get it to the point that we won't have to sell too many bonds a year to make up the shortfall. And remember, if we manage to jump-start the economy for real, that'll boost revenues big-time. Much of our current deficit is due to unemployment sapping revenues.
You can take a machete to the government's budget if you like. But you have to keep in mind the consequences of doing so.
Pronounced "shy guy."
First priority: making the economy work right. That means putting several million unemployed Americans back to work. Giving the economy a real jump-start on that level isn't going to be easy, and it looks like it may require more government spending in the short term. Another problem we've got: crumbling infrastructure. We need that in good working order, and there's a lot of deferred maintenance that's coming back to bite us. It's a sound investment. Example: Spend City and Austeria both have a bridge that needs repairs, and they can't fund them with taxes for some reason. Spend City borrows the money and makes the repairs; Austeria does nothing. Fast-forward several years and Austeria's bridge collapses, leading to lots of injuries and property damage and a few deaths. Since they need that bridge, they have to rebuild it now, meaning they still have to borrow money, only a lot more than Spend City had to years ago. So even with the accumulated interest they've paid since then factored in and all the mayhem in Austeria not factored in, Spend City is still less in the hole than Austeria is now. Then there's climate change and all the catastrophes that could cause if we don't cut way back on fossil fuels.
This is not to say that everything the government is currently spending money on is something it should be spending money on, but from my standpoint it looks like "stuff that they need to be doing and aren't" exceeds "stuff they shouldn't be doing and are" by a fair margin, with the probable exception of the military. Now the question is how to fund it. Retire the Bush tax cuts, which didn't do us much good? That covers a good chunk of the deficit there. A few more tax hikes and/or new taxes would be good, too, though we'd need to be careful to put them in places where they won't cause too much trouble. (Human and economic trouble, not political trouble.) Close loopholes, do some audits. If my experience with this is anything to go on, it shouldn't be too hard. It probably won't balance the budget, but it'll get it to the point that we won't have to sell too many bonds a year to make up the shortfall. And remember, if we manage to jump-start the economy for real, that'll boost revenues big-time. Much of our current deficit is due to unemployment sapping revenues.
You can take a machete to the government's budget if you like. But you have to keep in mind the consequences of doing so.
Pronounced "shy guy."