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
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:48 pm
Gets awful quiet on here when you ask the “Why” question, doesn’t it?
td
March 7th, 2013
11:48 pm
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
11:40 pm
“So-called “gay marriage” is a physical impossibility because marriage can only be between a man and a woman.”
Why can a marriage only be between a man and a woman?
Personally, I think marriage is a states issue and should be decided on a state by state basis like it has been for years. It has nothing to do with Constitutionally protected rights but instead is right the state can make on the basis of the mores and values of the individual state. We already have states that have set the standards differently in marriage. For example; the degree in relationship standard and age standard. If a state believes a gay couple should be allowed to marry then so be it for that state.
What is the valid state interest to allow a gay couple to marry?
td
March 7th, 2013
11:50 pm
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:48 pm
Gets awful quiet on here when you ask the “Why” question, doesn’t it?
I will ask you then why is there a valid state interest in allowing gay people to marry?
breckenridge
March 7th, 2013
11:54 pm
“For one to say that religious beliefs have no place in the law is just plain crazy or they are promoting secular humanism?”
Well when they go to Washington the first thing members of Congress do is take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Their first responsibility it to the Constitution and not the Bible or the Koran or any other instrument of religious instruction or any particular religious beliefs. Ultimately you can only serve one master and they are there to serve the Constitution.
Members of Congress are certainly not instructed to ditch their religious beliefs but rather make them secondary to the law of the land, which is the Constitution. In other words they should carefully consider if a piece of legislation they are going to propose is an effort to legislate their particular beliefs. If it is then they should tear it up and throw it in the trash.
Got it?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:56 pm
“I will ask you then why is there a valid state interest in allowing gay people to marry?”
I will return a question to you as my answer.
Since when does the state’s interests trump the interests of the individual?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”
In the big scheme of things, the individual is at the top of the food chain when it comes to “interests”, td.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:58 pm
“It has nothing to do with Constitutionally protected rights but instead is right the state can make on the basis of the mores and values of the individual state.”
Equal treatment under the law is not a Constitutionally protected right?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
12:00 am
“If a state believes a gay couple should be allowed to marry then so be it for that state. ”
And if their job takes them to another state which doesn’t allow gay marriage, are they suddenly no longer married?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
12:13 am
Looking forward to reading your responses tomorrow, td (if not necessarily some others), but it’s been a long day with an early wake up this morning due to parental health issues.
Catch you in the A.M.
Buzzy
March 8th, 2013
12:38 am
Yawn. Where were the Republicans when George Bush was running the country into the ground and we spent 86B every six months on Iraq?
The Republicans have no constructive plan. They just want to draw a government salary and foul the works up as long as they can.
ODD OWL
March 8th, 2013
1:20 am
Not one dime of the Republican massive $11 trillion + $2 trillion interest = $13 trillion debt went into my pocket or the pockets of any other non rich American… The Republican ran up the debt by cutting taxes on rich people, two unfunded wars to feed the military industrial complex and a prescription drug plan on the credit card, so why would i care about Republican debt ??? Share the wealth, tax the rich, pay down the debt…
HDB
March 8th, 2013
7:39 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
5:05 pm
“I see HDB is playing this game with words now in order to justify his rewriting of the dictionary:”
1) I didn’t write the definitions in the dictionary; I just brought forth the meanings! I can’t help it if promote and provide are synonymous! Blame the wordsmith, not me!!
2) I did not state that liberals and libertarians were the same; in fact, I showed the difference and brought forth a source that showed that modern liberalism is the upgrade to Jefferson and Locke…and also showed that limited government was designed to REGULATE business via the Constitution….and that’s how the Framers intended it! Libertarians prefer a pseudo-anarchistic system where there are NO rules…. personally and/or professionally.
3) FY2009 has been shown to be the final FISCAL year of the Bush Presidency, not the beginning of the the Obama Presidency….but those who are in denial persist in remaining so….
Wise man said…”don’t hate the player…hate the game!”
Sailfish
March 8th, 2013
8:04 am
odd owl
Well said!
Georgia
March 8th, 2013
8:17 am
They shoot lions, don’t they?
indigo
March 8th, 2013
8:35 am
Georgia – 8:17
If this new gun bill passes the Senate, they will be shooting more people, too.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
March 8th, 2013
8:40 am
HDB, you need to better educate yourself about libertarians and find a better source for comparison ..
And to deny that the chief executive could not have affected changes in spending for nine months after taking office continues to deny reality.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
March 8th, 2013
8:42 am
Have you ever noticed that ODD OWL’s posts start after the bars close down?
@@
March 8th, 2013
8:49 am
Aaaaaabout-FACE!!!!!
President Barack Obama prides himself on rejecting donations from registered lobbyists, but a newly released list of campaign fundraisers is peppered with leaders from companies and law firms that lobby the federal government.
schnirt
Finn McCool
March 8th, 2013
8:54 am
James O’Keefe Settles With Ex-ACORN Employee Juan Carlos Vera, Agrees To Pay $100,000
hehehehehe
Finn McCool
March 8th, 2013
8:56 am
And to deny that the chief executive could not have affected changes in spending for nine months
Yeah, if you can’t turn a battleship on a dime then you aren’t worth a dang.
JDW
March 8th, 2013
8:57 am
@Tiberius…”And to deny that the chief executive could not have affected changes in spending for nine months after taking office continues to deny reality.”
To suggest that he should have dismantled a budget and appropriations already in place, during the worst Recession since the 1930’s is completely delusional…but then I expect no more from you…it is a prime example of the thinking by today’s “Conservatives” that if left unchecked will render them a non-factor.
bluecoat
March 8th, 2013
9:02 am
If you do not like Sundays sermon,pull your gun and shoot the preacher.Just remember he could be packing.Woke this am to find I was in as good of fiscal shape as before the recession.More BS..
Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories
March 8th, 2013
9:02 am
Yep, typical lib responses, since the world revolves around them, we have to do studies to make sure that children with two deviants as parents aren’t harmed by it. Same people that study global warming and, of course, they are good with the two deviant household arrangement. Also, since church attendance is down, which is good in a way because that means we haven’t had anymore 9/11’s, it also means that no one is watching, so we should just boot morality to the curb and have at it. And finally, if you can’t see two defectives bunched up upon eachother, what harm is it to you?
Yes, the perfect prepackaged lib family, two deviants and an adopted child. Which is about as far from reality as you can get, as usual.
Rafe Hollister
March 8th, 2013
9:04 am
The Dems just keep on claiming that 2009 spending is to be attributed to GWB. It is a lie, in that Obama signed many of the bills, crawfished on his pledge to veto bills with ear marks in them, and encouraged all the spending he could, as he said we needed it to stimulate the economy. They repeat that lie here everyday and use left wing websites to back their claim.
As Rush Limbaugh says the only way to fight liberal absurdity is with absurdity. So, if that is the way we play the game, then get on board with Bush giving us a “surplus” in 2001. A real budget hawk, he really trimmed the budget and gave us a surplus.—-
The Treasury Department reported a budget surplus for the fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30,(2001) of $127 billion, compared with $237 billion a year ago.
When is Obama going to give us a surplus?
From a left wing website.
http://money.cnn.com/2001/10/29/economy/budget/
td
March 8th, 2013
9:05 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 7th, 2013
11:58 pm
“It has nothing to do with Constitutionally protected rights but instead is right the state can make on the basis of the mores and values of the individual state.”
Equal treatment under the law is not a Constitutionally protected right?
This would be a true statement if you believe there is a Constitutional right of marriage. I fail to see that protected right in the Constitution.
Rafe Hollister
March 8th, 2013
9:09 am
The last surplus in our national budget was delivered by GW Bush! Yet, he was considered a big spender prior to the anointment of the Emperor.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:11 am
“Yeah, if you can’t turn a battleship on a dime then you aren’t worth a dang.”
If you don’t even TRY to turn the battleship, you still need to take responsibility when it runs aground.
Keep flailing, Finn.
And JDW, once again, you may agree with his policy decision all you want, but if you are using it solely to deny his responsibility for the spending he had the authority to slow, then that is two separate issues.
Which I have pointed out all along.
He made a choice. You consider it a right one, while I disagree with his choice.
The problem is that you want to absolve him of each and every responsibility for the negatives of his administration (as do the rest of President Incompetent’s sycophants), while I am rightly claiming that his choice had the consequence of assigning responsibility for his actions, and that includes taking responsibility for a portion of the spending of FY 2009.
Which is something you can’t conceive of – assigning blame to this incompetent.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:15 am
“This would be a true statement if you believe there is a Constitutional right of marriage. I fail to see that protected right in the Constitution.”
Oh, td. I expected better of you.
There is no protected right to allow blacks to ride on the same bus as white people, but it is covered under equal protection. There is no enumerated right for blacks to use the same drinking fountain, or attend the same schools as white people, but it is covered under Constitutionally-approved laws passed by Congress and changes to our Constitution.
Equal protection is equal protection, td.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:22 am
Rafe, I see where you’re going on this, but two things come to mind:
First, there really was no budget surplus. It was smoke and mirrors accounting gimmicks that both Congress and the President used for political capital.
Two, to use my continuing analogy of President Incompetent being able to (correctly) affect spending during his first 9 months in office (and therefore be responsible for it), Bush would have had to have changed expected spending during his first 9 months, which I do not believe he did. He could rightly take credit that he didn’t diminish the (phony) surplus he had been left, but of course he never campaigned on cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term as this Incompetent loudly did.
td
March 8th, 2013
9:24 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
12:00 am
“If a state believes a gay couple should be allowed to marry then so be it for that state. ”
And if their job takes them to another state which doesn’t allow gay marriage, are they suddenly no longer married?
Just like a Drivers license or professional license. One state only recognizes the other states for a limited period of time.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:25 am
And Aesop, thanks for providing the expected “I got nothing but what the Bible tells me” response.
Greatly lacking in the thoughtful and serious category, but expected.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:29 am
And if their job takes them to another state which doesn’t allow gay marriage, are they suddenly no longer married?
“Just like a Drivers license or professional license. One state only recognizes the other states for a limited period of time.”
And if that couple has benefits from the same company based on their marriage, they now lose them because they’re in a different state? Any children they might be raising are no longer part of their family? The CHILDREN get booted off the benefits because they are no longer considered part of a family? Income taxes at the Federal level? On and on and on . . . .
All for something that should already be considered Constitutionally protected in the first place?
@@
March 8th, 2013
9:33 am
As long as there are surrogates and sperm banks, gay couples will, at the very least, be able to procure children.
Politico
March 8th, 2013
9:33 am
“Just like a Drivers license or professional license. One state only recognizes the other states for a limited period of time.”
Based on your analogy you much be are ok with those individuals getting married again in the new state. You know like having to get a new license within 30 days or whatever the length of time is when one moves to any given state.
Seems pretty stupid to have to get married again, but glad you are on board with equal protection as Tiberius has already explained to you.
Politico
March 8th, 2013
9:35 am
*must be
td
March 8th, 2013
9:41 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:15 am
“This would be a true statement if you believe there is a Constitutional right of marriage. I fail to see that protected right in the Constitution.”
Oh, td. I expected better of you.
There is no protected right to allow blacks to ride on the same bus as white people, but it is covered under equal protection. There is no enumerated right for blacks to use the same drinking fountain, or attend the same schools as white people, but it is covered under Constitutionally-approved laws passed by Congress and changes to our Constitution.
Equal protection is equal protection, td.
If I am not mistaken then the issue you are talking about with African Americans is covered under the 15th and 16th Amendments as the SCOTUS has upheld on many occasions. There is no such law passed by the Congress to even have a equal protection claim for marriage. I believe DOMA is the current law of the land and it does not protect such equal protections.
Like I said last night. States have all types of restrictions on marriage like age requirements and degrees of relationship. Marriage is not an individual right but it is a states right and states decide.
Politico
March 8th, 2013
9:46 am
“I believe DOMA is the current law of the land and it does not protect such equal protections.”
It certainly is and to an extent that is why the Supremes are going to decided if states can in fact have laws against gay marriage.
Why don’t you just say that you have issues with gay marriage based on religious / faith basis? Whether I agree or not, it seems to be a much more respectable stance than coming up with a zillion “legal” veils to hide behind.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:47 am
“I believe DOMA is the current law of the land and it does not protect such equal protections.”
Which will be going to SCOTUS and will likely be thrown out as unconstitutional. However, the equal protection clause in the in the Constitution, which means that protection already exists, an can only be changed via another amendment – not by a law which restricts it – which is why I believe that DOMA will be struck down.
And your age requirement fails completely, td. Age has nothing to do with equal protection, but everything to do with informed consent for adults.
td
March 8th, 2013
9:49 am
Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:29 am
And if their job takes them to another state which doesn’t allow gay marriage, are they suddenly no longer married?
“Just like a Drivers license or professional license. One state only recognizes the other states for a limited period of time.”
“And if that couple has benefits from the same company based on their marriage, they now lose them because they’re in a different state?”
That sounds like a company problem and not a state problems because companies can offer benefits to domestic partners if they choose.
” Any children they might be raising are no longer part of their family? ”
How are children born out of wedlock today recognized?
“The CHILDREN get booted off the benefits because they are no longer considered part of a family? ”
How are children now born out of wedlock able to receive those benefits?
“All for something that should already be considered Constitutionally protected in the first place?”
IYHO my friend.
Cheesy Grits is gone but not forgotten
March 8th, 2013
9:52 am
Bigots will be bigots.
Yesterday it was race or sex.
Today it is sexual preference.
They will always find a group that is different and attempt to exclude them.
Its what they do.
td
March 8th, 2013
9:55 am
Politico
March 8th, 2013
9:46 am
“I believe DOMA is the current law of the land and it does not protect such equal protections.”
It certainly is and to an extent that is why the Supremes are going to decided if states can in fact have laws against gay marriage.
Why don’t you just say that you have issues with gay marriage based on religious / faith basis? Whether I agree or not, it seems to be a much more respectable stance than coming up with a zillion “legal” veils to hide behind.
I am laying out not a religious argument because that one is to easy for you progressives to just ignore or attribute to just another “eight wing zealot” point. Instead I am laying out the Federalism argument and a Constitutional argument that the Federal government does not have unlimited powers to make up stuff as they wish. This way you progressives will actually have to make an intelligent argument based on law.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
9:59 am
“That sounds like a company problem and not a state problems because companies can offer benefits to domestic partners if they choose. ”
And you’re going to require a company to change their benefits policies because a “spouse” is no longer a “spouse”?
As to the children, whose children are they? Which was born of whom? It matters as to coverage, especially if the child is born of a spouse who isn’t the employee (you know, the one no longer covered?).
Look, I get your “states rights” argument. I believe that issues like abortion are valid topics for a states right discussion because it is a much more narrowly defined issue.
But there is either equal, or not equal. There is no in between. When it comes to someone else’s actions which have no bearing on your life, liberty or property there is no valid reason to fight against equal treatment under the law.
sailfish
March 8th, 2013
10:00 am
I love the fact that americans have the attention span of a knat. Flash back to september 08 and the economic world was literally crumbling around us. Who was president and what did he have to say about it? The next 8 months close to a million jobs a month were being shredded. Blaming obama for that is a fools choice, plus be honest all you conned, the cost of two wars was never really debated, just rubber stamped. The worst of the worst that still affects our economy to this day was the housing bust. Yes, those were great times when people were using their houses as their personal atm’s but the bubble did burst and now all many people are left with is enormous debt. There is still another two or three years before that concludes and housing can once again get back to treading water.
As much as many of you name callers want to blame obama, no matter who followed the bush disaster was doomed. OK, so you hated the stimulus but at least it was made in america and money funnelled to states and american citizens, without it, unemployment would be much higher today – fact! Kind of funny when people scream solyndra and waste of 500 million when auditors are finding BILLIONS of waste in rebuilding iraq. The debt is a real problem but unemployment is more urgent. The houses of reps priorites are backward just like so much of the failed conned ideology, they are the problem.
Politico
March 8th, 2013
10:01 am
td
Problem is that your argument is really just your religious beliefs veiled under your interpretation of the Constitution.
As I stated, I could respect your stance more if you just came out and said it is based on your faith. Hiding it is shallow. No offense, but it is.
Aquagirl
March 8th, 2013
10:01 am
If I am not mistaken then the issue you are talking about with African Americans is covered under the 15th and 16th Amendments
You are mistaken, the 16th Amendment is about income tax.
African-Americans can claim the right to ride buses or attend public schools under the due process clause (Fifth) and the section of the 14th that says
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Notice there is nothing in there about former slaves or type of citizen, I believe it’s cited in court cases to overturn DOMA.
We can restrict classes of people from either unexpressed (bus riding) or expressed (voting) rights if there is a compelling interest, no right is guaranteed under all circumstances. The problem with denying gays marriage is the anti folks are unable to show that compelling interest. “I don’t like it” is not a compelling interest to deny equal protection under the law.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:02 am
“Instead I am laying out the Federalism argument and a Constitutional argument that the Federal government does not have unlimited powers to make up stuff as they wish.”
Like a law assigning Federal power to regulate marriages?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:02 am
And muck up all the legal ramifications of marriage in each individual state by doing so?
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:05 am
“OK, so you hated the stimulus but at least it was made in america and money funnelled to states and american citizens, without it, unemployment would be much higher today – fact!”
Actually, that is supposition, sailfish. Once a particular path is taken you will never know what an alternative path might have done.
Politico
March 8th, 2013
10:06 am
td
And stop being so weak with your “progressive” term that you think is some witty put down.
There are “progressives” who are not for gay marriage and there are conservatives and libertarians who are for allowing it. I know it made you feel good to throw out your usual broad brush, but on this issue it transcends party and ideological philosophies.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
March 8th, 2013
10:08 am
Politico, I do not believe that td is relying on a faith-based disagreement with gay marriage at all. There may be some part of it, but not knowing him/her personally I can’t tell.
Neither can you.
td’s argument about states rights can be a valid one for certain issues, and a Constitutional argument can be made in many cases for an anti-Federal solution to many problems, but as I have stated already, equality isn’t one of them.
sailfish
March 8th, 2013
10:08 am
“Actually, that is supposition, sailfish. Once a particular path is taken you will never know what an alternative path might have done.”
Fine, that’s a good point but just go back and see Hoover, he did nothing and what was the result of that inaction?