Explaining debt doesn’t sway

I thank David Treppendahl (“Supply Side doesn’t supply,” Nov. 20) for introducing me to a very informative website (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact). He uses that website to show that revenues during President Barack Obama’s first term were lower than historical averages (15.4 percent of GDP during his first term versus the historical average of around 18 percent). His emphasis: low tax rates are the main reason we have a big deficit.

Perhaps some people should be taxed more, and almost certainly our tax code should be overhauled, but one could also argue that tax revenues should decrease during a recession. Similarly, one might expect some belt tightening of government during a recession, but no such luck. Federal government spending increased substantially from historical averages of 20 percent of GDP to around 24.4 percent of GDP during Obama’s first term. If government spending had not increased, our deficit would have grown at a rate only slightly higher than historical norms over the last 30 years.

Which leads me to the following question: What’s so wrong with the government spending too much? A big problem we “spending alarmists” have is that while some don’t have jobs, it is true that for many people things still seem eerily OK. We are told that the federal government borrows $1 trillion per year, and instinctively it may sound bad, but there don’t seem to be real consequences. How about this: Every year that the government borrows $1 trillion (like it did for each of the last four years), the average debt for each person in the United States increases by $3,000. So, the total average increased debt over the last four years for a family of four is $48,000. Half those families won’t contribute to paying off the debt, so the increased debt for those that will is closer to $100,000. That family of four helping pay for government often already has debt obligations (car note, house note, taxes to pay for already-existing government debt, education costs, business-related costs, etc.)

The note on an additional $100,000 means less money will be available to build a business, invest in education or go on a trip. That extra $100,000 of debt represents an erosion in the future quality of life.

If you went to the voting booth a few weeks ago not realizing the consequences of the debt increase you and your children will need to repay, you were voting without a clear picture of what is going on. But it seems to be an “I’ll get mine while it lasts” country these days and I’m not sure any explanation of the seriousness of excessive debt would sway too many. Makes me sad.

kevin kelly

engineer

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 10/12/2012

How funny. Ag's whole post was about blaming others and then accuses liberals of always blaming others.. do you guys ever think about what spews out? And frankly, there is a difference between blame and holding accountable. For example, by saying Newt Ginrich was the largest spender in the last 30 years (until Bush and Cheney), isn't blame. It recognition. Lastly, ag has it all wrong. Bush and Cheny are exactly what the Republican Party is today. Big spenders and cronyism-- the only principals they have. .

2) Comment by agagent - 08/12/2012

Deficits have always mattered to conservatives. Bush/Cheney were not fiscal conservatives. They clashed with conservatives in their party on spending. Bush did not veto any of the spending when Democrats controlled Congress in 2007 and 2008. A balanced budget law for the federal government would be the best medicine for the deficit problem, the power grabbing, and the corruption in the federal government. Entitlement spending increased by $900 billion in a few short years and that is the main driver of our current deficits. Now Obama does not want entitlement reform as part of fiscal cliff or debt limit negotiations. We are headed toward a $20 trillion national debt and a possible collapse and liberals are happy about it. They always blame someone else.

3) Comment by tradewinns - 07/12/2012

i hate to get involved in a political argument because noone is changing anyone's mind about the matter, which ever one being discussed. but i will point out pres. obama had a democrat majority in the house and the senate the first two years of his first term. the republicans squealed and shouted and then were out voted. they could do nothing but watch. the voters put the majority republicans in the "people's house" for whatever reason they found.

4) Comment by DMJ - 07/12/2012

I voted for Obama because I'm a liberal. What am I supposed to do? Vote for a Republican?? Vote for Ralph Nader? Obama has been a disappointment in many respects (as all Presidents are, inevitably) but he's still better than the alternative. Also, I suspect that he would have had more success had he not faced unprecedented opposition from the Republicans on just about every single issue. He tried to raise taxes to cut the deficit; Republicans won't let him. He tried to close Gitmo; Republicans won't let him. He can't just go around doing whatever he wants; he's not a dictator.

5) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 07/12/2012

Host, I don't suppose the obstructionist own any part of those "failures?" I don't suppose it is reasonable to state that there has never been a president to achieve all their goals? What about the accomplishments? Should we all ignore that the Iraq war was ended? Or that Bin Ladin is dead? How about preventing the worst recession from turning into a depression (despite the obstruction from the right)? The OGB reports the AHA will slow the cost of healthcare? A lot of success you forgot to mention in your doom and gloom post.

6) Comment by The_Host - 06/12/2012

So DMJ why did you vote for Obama? Did you vote for him last time because he promised to cut the deficit in half? Did you vote for the transparency he promised and so you could read every bill online for a week before he signed it? Was it to close Gitmo? Were you even old enough to vote in the last election? I sure hope not since he added over 6 trillion in debt, never posted a single thing online and proceeded to do everything in the middle of the night. Oh and Gitmo is still open for business is it not? You just have to love a man who can keep his promises. What better reason to vote for him again. Funny how it was unpatriotic and a pock on our children to take out the Chinese credit card and run up debt when he was running for President. And how raising the debt ceiling was the wrong thing to do. Now he wants no ceiling at all. My how times change so quickly.

7) Comment by DMJ - 06/12/2012

Well...at least the supposed reason we progressives vote the way we do changed from us hating America to us simply being ignorant. I guess that's progress....

8) Comment by Hello Baton Rouge - 06/12/2012

Why would any president care about spending? By the time the real problems from his spending come to light, he's retired drawing a huge salary for life. Its the simple explanation of "its not their money" so why should they care?

9) Comment by NearBarbarian - 06/12/2012

A letter of rejoinder should be written and titled "Explaining History Doesn't Sway." If Mr. Kelly didn't suffer from the convenient amnesia from which so many in the US tend to suffer, he'd direct his sorrowful Jeremiad to Monsieurs Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. (Might as well give Mr. Clinton--the most successful Republican of the last twenty years to run on the Democratic ticket--some credit, too.) Like very few others, they and their devotees abided by the "I'll Get Mine While It Lasts" with more zeal than Russian mobsters. What's sad--well, not really--is that Kelly et al are destroying their beautiful mansion walled in glass. I see that the American tradition of hypocrisy is alive and well, stoked up just in time for Christmas.

10) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 06/12/2012

In the words of Dick Cheney, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." At least, until a democrat is in office.

11) Comment by 8point6 - 06/12/2012

"and I’m not sure any explanation of the seriousness of excessive debt would sway too many." No, it won't. It doesn't matter how many explanations you give. My "progressive" friends refuse to understand it. It would be great if I could spend more than I have in my checking account, and not have to pay it back.

12) Comment by DMJ - 06/12/2012

Another condescending letter from someone who thinks that those who voted differently just didn't understand what we were doing. Booorrrriiinnng. I didn't vote for Obama because I wanted anything in particular. Not everyone is ruled by their own selfishness, Kevin. Besides, you can hardly blame us for being skeptical about Republicans' ability to be responsible stewards of the economy, can you?

13) Comment by tradewinns - 05/12/2012

mr. kelly, most of the older generation would gladly get by with less, or pay more, if it would help the situation. unfortunately the pattern has been set by the "majority" to take, take, take! that makes my sad also. however it also makes me mad as heck! if you listen to the lying politicians, you would think there is very little anyone of them could do without doing substancial damage to a segment of the population. then you hear about the "free cell phones" debacle which shows politicians are liars! that program started as a land line capable of calling 9-1-1 in an emergency. it cost $200K nationwide. the cost is now ONE BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR SO SOMEONE CAN STAY CONNECTED TO FAMILY AND FRIENDS, and if the need arises call 9-1-1. can you just imagine what waste is in the federal budget that is not so obvious? by the way, even with the exposure of the stupidity of the cell phone debacle, not one congressional member has offered a bill to "correct" this waste. go figure.