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
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
467 comments Add your comment
HDB
March 7th, 2013
1:04 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
12:50 pm
“The difference is that liberals want personal freedom and a well-regulated business sector.”
Which is the antithesis of limited government, HDB.
Wrong again, Tibbi….review Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
Section. 8.
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
……..
And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The framers have written that part of the role of limited government IS to regulate commerce….which means to place proper regulations on the business sector so that ALL of the people can receive the benefits therein……
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:06 pm
Or is it that what you really want is to use the tax code to redistribute income from the rich to the less rich?
We already do that and always have.
In America people who make it to the top and become rich should do so because of their talent and hard work.
Not because they are a trust fund baby and were born into it.
America has always been about redistibution of wealth. Its a very healthy thing.
Unfortunately with super low tax rates on the rich this is happening less and less.
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
1:06 pm
“They are based on English Common Law.”
Tiberius: “Which are, in turn, ultimately based on Judeo-Christian values.”
Another myth from Tibberville.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:08 pm
Indigo, if you are not going to apply your brain to something and just follow what others tell you (which of course is the definition of a liberal), then why are you even bothering to show up here?
Do some research on libertarianism for crying out loud before you go back into your echo chamber.
Go to their website and take their short quiz. One thing you’ll find out is that the left-right, liberal-conservative political dynamic is completely false as regards how this country actually is aligned. Instead of a straight line, they use a diamond which adds (to the usual left / right / moderate alignments) options for libertarian (the Founding Fathers) and authoritarian (Hillary Clinton) based on how you answer the questions.
A much more accurate gauge of the country’s alignment than the straight line of thought you have.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
1:08 pm
Cheesy-
If you want to be critical of someone and the tax code, first learn the tax code. On earned income of course his rate is the same as anyone else with that same amount of income. His “lower rates” is because the vast majority of his income is from dividends, interest and capital gains. Those things are taxed at a lower rate to encourage investment.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:08 pm
Another myth from Tibberville.
They flow like a mighty stream around here.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:09 pm
“Another myth from Tibberville.”
Because, of course, in MarkVville, the Ten Commandments never existed.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:10 pm
On earned income of course his rate is the same as anyone else with that same amount of income. His “lower rates” is because the vast majority of his income is from dividends, interest and capital gains.
Right. So instead of taking a salary he gets his money that way.
So he can pay a much lower tax rate than most Americans.
Its shameful.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
1:11 pm
Cheesy-
Again, how uninformed you are. Was Romney born into wealth? Yes. What did Romney do with his inheritance? He gave it away. Romney is rich because of what he earned as a businessman, not because he was a trust baby? Good grief
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:12 pm
“which means to place proper regulations on the business sector so that ALL of the people can receive the benefits therein……”
And the difference between what is considered “proper” is the difference between liberals and libertarians, JDW.
Anyone who believes that the Founding Fathers would agree with the size and scope of our current liberal-created government is not playing with a full deck.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:12 pm
the Ten Commandments never existed
Is adultery illegal ?
How about coveting ?
Taking the lords name in vain ?
If all our laws are based on the Ten Comandments they sure left out parts.
getalife
March 7th, 2013
1:13 pm
“Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), a former Wall Street executive, is joining Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Ill.) to introduce legislation that would deregulate derivatives, undercutting one of the most meaningful elements of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act.” HP
There is your bipartisanship.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
1:14 pm
Cheesy-
You continue to show how uninformed you are. To have earned income you have to have a job and receive a paycheck, Romney is living off his investments that he payed earned income tax on. When he was governor, he served without pay, same has the head of the Utah winter games.
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
1:15 pm
“Because, of course, in MarkVville, the Ten Commandments never existed”
Because, of course, Tiberius does not know what he is talking about.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:15 pm
“You are confusing religiousness with morality and you are making a statement that simply is not supported by facts.”
Not confusing them, breckenridge – LINKING them. I am not saying that it is possible for someone without religion to be moral, but I am saying that our laws ARE based on the morality of Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:15 pm
Romney is rich because of what he earned as a businessman, not because he was a trust baby? Good grief
LOL
Yeah he had it pretty rough.
He is the example of a trust fund baby. Every door was opened for him.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:17 pm
“Because, of course, Tiberius does not know what he is talking about.”
Of course, in a logical debate the person challenging things that they believe are incorrect would now post something which proves their point.
Which is why MarkV can only resort to insults.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 7th, 2013
1:19 pm
but I am saying that our laws ARE based on the morality of Judeo-Christian beliefs.
And you are 100 percent wrong.
I think we have settled this. Any new business.
Retired Soldier
March 7th, 2013
1:19 pm
Cheesy-
Going have to stop debating you, the facts mean nothing, so what’s the point. You are the perfect example of what is wrong with America. You won’t be satisfied until you have destroyed this country. Congrats, you are well on your way.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:19 pm
“Every door was opened for him.”
Really, Cheesy?
Please detail your lifetime of experience in living with and working with Mitt Romney.
Your insight and direct knowledge would be enlightening.
For a change.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:20 pm
“And you are 100 percent wrong.”
And at this point is a logical debate, the person disagreeing would provide something known as “facts” which might be used to dispel the other person’s notion.
Which is why Cheesy doesn’t do so.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
1:22 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:12 pm
Tibbi, the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the nation as it is at present….so as the nation has grown, the size and scope of government has, by necessity, expanded with said growth! Now don’t get me wrong…there have been some regulations placed on business that are onerous and need to be removed (and I’m a liberal)….but the majority of regulations are designed so that ALL of the nation benefits from the economy! Some regulations determine business practices…some determine environmental effect. The Founders probably only saw environmental damage as needing a shovel to rectify; now, there’s more to encompass…..
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:22 pm
“If all our laws are based on the Ten Comandments they sure left out parts.”
And did anyone say ALL our laws, Cheesy?
No.
Only an idiot would make that claim.
Or debate the claim was made.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:26 pm
“Tibbi, the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the nation as it is at present….so as the nation has grown, the size and scope of government has, by necessity, expanded with said growth! ”
And once again, there is no evidence that the Founding Fathers would have ever agreed with SS, Medicare, welfare, the government control of education, or the policeman of the world’s problems.
Libertarians, HDB.
Say it with me.
Libertarians.
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 7th, 2013
1:26 pm
The United States was founded by people that were seeking freedom from religious persecution and the free practice thereof. No other reason. None. Not to come and kill indians for pleasure like your whackjob college professor told you. It was for the freedom to practice their religion. The founders were very religious and were also very decent people not entirely focused upon themselves, unlike today’s liberals.
They were men, not metros.
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
1:28 pm
Tiberius @ 1:17 pm
“Of course, in a logical debate the person challenging things that they believe are incorrect would now post something which proves their point.”
As Tiberius has done, when he challenged Cheesy’s comment?
“Which is why MarkV can only resort to insults.”
Says Tiberius, the premier offender.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:30 pm
“As Tiberius has done, when he challenged Cheesy’s comment?”
Which time, Oh debate-challenged One?
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
1:31 pm
Let’s break it down here…..
Sixth Commandment – Thou shalt not kill. Under US law killing, in most circumstances, is a crime punishable by imprisonment or death.
Eighth Commandment – Thou shalt not steal. Under US law stealing is a crime punishable by probation or imprisonment.
Seventh Commandment – Thou shalt not commit adultery. Adultery is a crime under US law….oops! it’s not a crime? Hmm, I’m sensing a disconnect here. Although in Puritan New England adultery was a crime punishable by death. They were totally whacked.
Third Commandment – Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord God in vain. Well my goodness talk about needing more jails! Good thing there is no crime here or we’d have more jailed than jailers.
Morality and religion, similar but certainly not identical.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:31 pm
btw, MarkV, your entire contribution to this blog today has been to insult someone.
Are you going to do anything else, or are you too afraid to have your warped views exposed for what they are again today?
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
1:32 pm
Some of the most important elements of modern system of law, such as ours:
Equality before the law.
The accused is innocent until proven guilty.
The accused has a right to defend himself and to know his accuser.
Anybody wants to find that in Ten Commandments, or the bible for that matter?
Just Saying..
March 7th, 2013
1:33 pm
Oh man, won’t this President leave al Qaeda alone? Captured bin Laden’s SIL? I thought it was the deficit he should focus on.
Oh, right. He didn’t have anything to do with it. It was President Bush’s accomplishment…
MarkV
March 7th, 2013
1:34 pm
Tiberius @1:31 pm
“btw, MarkV, your entire contribution to this blog today has been to insult someone.”
Another lie from the premier offender.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
1:36 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:26 pm
“And once again, there is no evidence that the Founding Fathers would have ever agreed with SS, Medicare, welfare, the government control of education, or the policeman of the world’s problems.”
In many ways, Tibbi……the evidence exists that the Founders would have!!
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”
SS/Medicare/Medicaid — “promote the general Welfare”, i.e, health and well-being of the nation
Education — “secure the Blessings of Liberty…”, i.e., how do you know how good you’ve got it unless you know the alternatives…on a MASSIVE scale!!??
“Policeman of the world’s problems” — ” insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,”…and our POSTERITY….
….as I said, Tibbi…LIBERALS…….
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:39 pm
“Morality and religion, similar but certainly not identical.”
And if anyone was arguing identical, you’d be on point, breckenridge.
Your poutrage is noted.
Stop arguing in absolutes. The extremes are what gets everyone in life in trouble.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:45 pm
Never before have you written such garbage, HDB.
As has been submitted before, PROMOTE the general welfare does not equate to PROVIDE the general welfare. Two different words, two very different meanings.
How does “securing the blessings of liberty” mean public education? Make the case with FACTS, please, not emotion.
And providing for the common defense speaks to the defense of THIS nation, not OTHER nations and their defense.
Are you even familiar with the concept of logical argument?
HDB
March 7th, 2013
1:45 pm
Tibbi….to counter your “liberal vs libertarian” argument……
http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/12/classical-liberalism-vs-modern-liberalis
Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism
What’s the best way to secure everyone’s mastery over his or her own destiny?
Sheldon Richman | August 12, 2012
“In The Future of Liberalism (2009), Alan Wolfe writes that the true heirs to the liberalism of John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson are not today’s classical liberals (libertarians), but rather the other kind of liberals, those who would use government power to assure autonomy and equality for all. Such “modern liberalism,” for Wolfe, is simply an updating of the original: In the eighteenth century, political power crushed autonomy and equality, requiring a free market as the antidote; now private corporate power under capitalism does the same, but this time the remedy is active government.”
independent thinker
March 7th, 2013
1:51 pm
KYLE- you are correct that I misread the years on table 3.1 of the OMB historical spending data. However the expenditure in 2000 for defense was $294 billion when George W. took office. It is now projected at over $710 billion for 2012. Again where is that $420 or so billion a year increase and others for twelve years supposed to come from????????Please explain how a severe decrease in tax revenue due to tax cuts by an administration trying to buy votes and contributions from the rich and an administration that gives free unfunded drugs for the elderly justifies cutting social security and Medicare????????????????
Tell us the math that justifies this total recklessness by the stupid party. I have yet to hear a sensible explanation from you or one of your resident cons who apparently could care less about the basic math of what caused the increase in the deficit over recent years.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:52 pm
So, HDB, you’re now (finally) admitting that the definition of liberals in the 18th century is now considered libertarianism today.
Good for you. You’ve finally come around to agreement with me.
The problem is that (as I have always maintained) is that the Founding Fathers are today’s libertarians, and not today’s liberals.
Congratulations on achieving enlightenment.
@@
March 7th, 2013
1:58 pm
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,”
I DO!
If it ain’t goin’ out, it’s staying put. The bulk of THAT revenue should go towards reducing our debt.
What kind of parent is willing to dump a load of debt on their children? Not me!!!
JKL2
March 7th, 2013
1:59 pm
cheesy- To deny that our laws are based on Judeo-Christian moral values of right and wrong is to deny reality. Wrong again. ( Like a broken record )
Since you everything and we are mere peasants, please list all of the Judeo-Christian moral values that go against our rule of law (since they have nothing in common).
HDB
March 7th, 2013
2:01 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:45 pm
Tibbi…in certain cases, to PROMOTE a function also entails PROVIDING the FUNDING! One may…and in certain instances…. DOES incorporate the other.
At times, in order to defend this nation, you have to defend other nations to keep the battle away from the homeland (or as you President Bush said…”take the battle to them”). Remember, the only wars fought on the homeland were to KEEP the homeland intact. NO foreign power has invaded nor had to be repelled from the US mainland.
“Securing the blessings of liberty” encompasses many facets…including teaching about the nation and the responsibilities of its citizens. When the Founders were teaching their aspects of civic responsibility, it could be done in a small environment. As the nation grew, the ability of teaching the masses had to grow proportionately. Now look at what citizens (native-born and immigrant) have to learn (remember your American History and Civics classes)……what entity can handle teaching such to the MASSES?? That encompasses PUBLIC EDUCATION!!
Logical argument….
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
2:03 pm
“And if anyone was arguing identical, you’d be on point, breckenridge.”
Yes, if they were identical we’d have Biblical Law. That experiment has been tried here, by the Puritans, but failed. Those are the same Puritans that left England to escape religious persecution and came to America so they could practice religious persecution. Don’t agree with our beliefs? Goodbye Roger Williams, goodbye Anne Hutchinson, goodbye John Wheelright, don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Although to be fair one of the main reasons had to get rid of Anne Hutchinson is simply because she was smarter than they were, John Winthrop included, and they just couldn’t tolerate in a woman.
HDB
March 7th, 2013
2:06 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
1:52 pm
No, Tibbi…I don’t agree!! Note what the article said: libertarians are NOT equivalent to Locke, Jefferson, and Smith….but MODERN LIBERALS are the update to the originals!! Your dyslexia is showing again!!
Lt Dan
March 7th, 2013
2:07 pm
Could we all agree that a major way to address our country’s finances would be to reform the current tax code?
How about we scrap it in total and replace it with a system where those who use the best lobbyists do not get the best tax credits? And to that end, a code with no tax credits for anyone?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
2:13 pm
“Tibbi…in certain cases, to PROMOTE a function also entails PROVIDING the FUNDING! One may…and in certain instances…. DOES incorporate the other.”
Only if you completely ignore the meanings of both “promote” and “provide”, HDB. In case you missed it, you may not.
“At times, in order to defend this nation, you have to defend other nations to keep the battle away from the homeland (or as you President Bush said…”take the battle to them”). Remember, the only wars fought on the homeland were to KEEP the homeland intact.”
And yet somehow I don’t think your support for GWB’s invasion of Iraq is anything but new-found and serves only as a means to make your preposterous notion of “common defence” hold water.
“NO foreign power has invaded nor had to be repelled from the US mainland.”
More to do with the fact that we are bordered by two very large oceans and allies (and the fact that we could kick anyone’s butt who tried) than anything else, HDB.
“Securing the blessings of liberty” encompasses many facets…including teaching about the nation and the responsibilities of its citizens.”
If you were to define each of the words “Securing” “The” “Blessings” “of” “Liberty”, you would not find the word “education” in any of them. As such, your argument is not based on logic at all, but is contrived in the extreme based on your liberal beliefs, not in reality nor logic.
Logical Dude
March 7th, 2013
2:14 pm
It comes down to this quote:
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.”
People can pressure politicians all they want, but so far ALL politicians who run duck the issue.
They change the subject.
They talk a good game.
They agree with everyone about everything.
They engage nicely.
Until they get elected, then they become partisan pawns who can’t get anything done.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
2:15 pm
No dyslexia, HDB. I just understand the English language better than you.
@@
March 7th, 2013
2:16 pm
Could we all agree that a major way to address our country’s finances would be to reform the current tax code?
And to that end, a code with no tax credits for anyone?
I’m on board!
It would cut the ties that bind and stop the infighting that exists among Americans. No more victims…no more whining.
Don't Tread
March 7th, 2013
2:17 pm
“liberals want personal freedom”
Except those freedoms they don’t agree with, especially when exercised by people they don’t like.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
2:17 pm
“No more victims…no more whining.”
But then what would liberals do, @@?