Pressuring the people to pressure the politicians about our national debt

First came the New Year’s tax increases of the “fiscal cliff.” Last week, the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration took effect. Still, Congress will spend much of March negotiating a deal to fund the federal government for the next six months — a deal that, in all likelihood, will mean borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars more.

Lurching from one crisis to the next, however real or contrived each one may be, has not put the country on a more solid, sustainable fiscal path. That’s where Maya MacGuineas comes in.

“We actually know for the most part what the parameters of a fix are,” MacGuineas, head of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, told me during a stop in Atlanta two weeks ago. “You know that you’re going to have to look at all parts of the budget.

“You know that a key challenge here is reforming our entitlement programs, as aging and health care are driving the debt, and that … we can reform entitlement programs in ways that are true to protecting people who depend on them — if we get ahead of it.”

True to CRFB’s bipartisan credentials, MacGuineas doesn’t put all the emphasis on the spending side. She also points to the $1 trillion in annual “tax expenditures,” subsidies hidden in the tax code rather than appropriations bills.

“Nobody looks at them,” she said. “These spending programs, dressed up as tax cuts — many of which are not working, many of which are de-leveling the playing field instead of allowing for a functioning economic system, all of which are draining the Treasury — need to be part of that evaluation too.”

So, how do we get politicians to do something they seemingly don’t want to do? One step is for everyone to acknowledge the immediacy of the problem.

“It really concerns me,” MacGuineas said, to hear “the argument, ‘Look at the [interest] rate environment. Why would we want to focus on the deficit? What we should be doing is borrowing more.’ That’s what people who give you credit-card teaser rates say also, to hook you in.”

Government debt that isn’t repaid on time — i.e., virtually all of it — must be refinanced later, almost certainly at higher interest rates. Just a 1-percentage-point increase in interest rates, MacGuineas said, could mean at least $1.3 trillion more in interest payments over the following decade.

“That’s the amount the super-committee [created by the 2011 debt-ceiling deal] failed to find in savings,” leading to the sequester cuts, she pointed out.

Another way is to point out the glaring flaws of proposals on the table.

“I give Paul Ryan credit for putting out a budget that shows how he would do it with spending cuts only,” MacGuineas said, “but don’t forget that budget includes a bunch of Medicare savings he said he opposed during the [2012 presidential] race.”

President Barack Obama’s budgets have their own problems, she said: “One year, he talked about 12-year budgets compared to other people’s 10-year numbers. The next year he counted war savings [after previously announcing the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan], which is really a gimmick.”

MacGuineas said voters “bear a huge responsibility” for continuing to “elect people with a bunch of promises that just are not workable, but they sound good.” That said, she insisted voters “should be able to trust their elected leaders to lead an honest discussion about it. … And that’s not happening.”

She also hopes that if others, such as herself, force that honest discussion upon the country, it will change the political incentives that affect taxing and spending.

“I think what happens in discussions is there are tipping points. And I think if you have enough people talking about this, you have the next ‘Ross Perot moment,’ where it goes from everybody promising fiscal giveaways to, suddenly, we the voters demand they tell us how they’d fix it. And once it gets to that point, then you know that somebody selling you the easy way out isn’t telling the truth, and then it becomes politically more important to have a fix.”

– By Kyle Wingfield

467 comments Add your comment

Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)

March 8th, 2013
11:58 am

Yeah, that $8 billion in wasted money to rebuild Iraq sure would be useful about now….

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

March 8th, 2013
12:01 pm

As would all that money wasted on green energy companies, Finn.

Too bad we’ll never read that coming from your keyboard.

Waste is waste, no matter who gives the tax money away.

breckenridge

March 8th, 2013
12:09 pm

“Yeah, that $8 billion in wasted money to rebuild Iraq sure would be useful about now….”

It far exceeds $8 billion. The total cost to date of the Iraq war is somewhere in the $2 trillion range, the final cost won’t be clear until all the costs of treating soldiers with bodily injuries and PTSD play out. And I still can’t figure out what the mission was there. I mean it was an evolving thing. First we going to get rid of Saddam, then we were going to export democracy, then it changed to country building……..it would seem to me it’s much better to define a clear objective at the beginning of a conflict.

Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)

March 8th, 2013
12:09 pm

Waste is waste, no matter who gives the tax money away

No it’s not. One is meant to try something for americans, the other is meant to try something for Iraqi’s.

Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)

March 8th, 2013
12:10 pm

it’s much better to define a clear objective at the beginning of a conflict.

Which is why we don’t let republicans have the reigns any longer.

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

March 8th, 2013
12:12 pm

“No it’s not. One is meant to try something for americans, the other is meant to try something for Iraqi’s.”

Nice try at deflection, Finn, but unfortunately, when you (wrongly) invade another sovereign nation, you’re required to clean up your mess.

But cleaning up the messes you make isn’t in the liberal playbook, is it?

JDW

March 8th, 2013
12:17 pm

@Tiberius…”If he did not have the authority, the Congress wouldn’t have found the need to pass the follow-on act, moron!”

DUHHHH…he had it in 1974…not in 2009…bit time challenged are we now?

“As is your galactic-sized stupidity. JDW”

I do know what year it is…

HDB

March 8th, 2013
12:18 pm

hryder
March 8th, 2013
11:51 am

The problem with you attitude is multiple:

1) There are already term limits in federal offices; for Congress, it’s an ELECTION!! If you don’t like the incumbent, vote for his/her opponent!

2) The Supreme Court has held the Affordable Care Act as constitutional….and as a result, health care costs have DECLINED 4% annually. Granted, there will be some tweaks needed…but it is working!

3) As a government employee, Congress has the right to access the federal retirement system; if you had said that they should be VESTED like other federal employees (i.e., five years) before being able to access retirement, then the issue would be how long would the vesting period be for Congress (3 Congressional terms = 1 Senatorial term)…..

4) A balanced budget amendment would limit the flexibility of the federal government to react to situations in the nation whose scope is larger than any other entity in the US could handle….save the federal government…..like natural disasters, economic downturns……

5) The Constitution has a strict set of rules to cover the impeachment of the President (”high crimes and misdemeanors”); since you wish Obama indicted for your desired charges, would you agree to similar charges filed against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for getting the nation into two wars on false pretenses, lying in public statements, ineptness in carrying out the mandated duties of office with a demonstrated lack of fiscally sound economic practices and policies??

Goes both ways……….

Rafe Hollister

March 8th, 2013
12:21 pm

JDW and Tiberius

Yes, I know to claim Bush had a “surplus” is absurd, just like claiming Obama had nothing to do with the spending and Stimulus added to the budget in 2009, and absurd like saying we had a “surplus”, smoke and mirrors as it was. Note I put surplus in quotes, as it was for the most part an accounting trick.

If you are going to maintain that Obama did not major influence on spending in 2009, I am going to maintain that Bush had a surplus in the budget on 30 Sep 2001, after he had been in office for 9 of the 12 months. He could have spent all that surplus, had he not been “thrifty”, hah!!!

southpaw

March 8th, 2013
12:22 pm

New thread upstairs

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

March 8th, 2013
12:24 pm

“DUHHHH…he had it in 1974…not in 2009…bit time challenged are we now?”

Just as he has it NOW, JDW.

A bit Constitutionally-challenged, are we now? (What am I saying – that’s a given with you)

Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

March 8th, 2013
12:25 pm

“The Supreme Court has held the Affordable Care Act as constitutional….and as a result, health care costs have DECLINED 4% annually.”

Absolutely, 100% false, HDB.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

March 8th, 2013
12:26 pm

Tib: Even if it is true (and I’m not sure that it is), do you blame them for having more stress when ignorant blowhards like…LBB go around degrading their parents in public as animals?
———

Link please.

Rafe Hollister

March 8th, 2013
12:35 pm

brenkenridge

You and Finn act like if we hadn’t gone in and removed Saddam, that we would have saved all this money. You can’t make that statement, because you can never predict, what he would have done next. We have to assume he sat there and continued to defy UN resolutions and we would be flying sorties indefinitely to enforce the no fly zones. No one else was going to do it, so how much would “containment” cost? Would be still enforcing the no fly zone, today? Saddam was convinced that we were all talk and no action, so what makes you think he would have changed or been removed internally?

If you are not going to enforce the UN resolutions, why have the UN, which is probably a good idea anyway. Just think how much we could save if we withdrew from that collection of despots and dictators and anti-American schmucks.

breckenridge

March 8th, 2013
1:03 pm

“You and Finn act like if we hadn’t gone in and removed Saddam, that we would have saved all this money.”

You obviously have me confused with somebody else. I simply stated what the Iraq war has cost and the fact that the objective was a moving target. I said nothing about saving money. Do not try to put words in my mouth.

Finn McCool (the system isn't broken; it's fixed)

March 8th, 2013
1:10 pm

The total cost to date of the Iraq war is somewhere in the $2 trillion range

If 41 had only told 43 that he loved him more, we wouldn’t be out $2 trillion.

Lil' Barry Bailout - OBAMAPHONE!!!

March 10th, 2013
9:22 am

And 50 million people who have democracy today in the heart of the Middle East would still be living under repressive, murderous regimes.

Our President Bush’s two unfunded wars started a democracy revolution in that part of the world that will reap huge dividends in the long term as other Arab countries demand more freedom. The Arab Spring is an echo of Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the Nobel Peace Prize were awarded for actual accomplishments, Obozo’s would be ripped from his hands and presented to Our President Bush.