- Edwards Releases Senate Fundraising Totals
- Academics Say Higher Education Prepared Them for Higher Office
- Top Races to Watch in 2016: The Mountain Region
- Top Races to Watch in 2016: New England
- Top Races in 2016: The Midwest
Recently, our country passed an ignominious mark — more than $16 trillion in federal debt. It is a number so large that it is hard for most Americans to comprehend.
To put it into a little perspective, the $16 trillion in federal debt translates to more than $140,000 that would be owed by each and every taxpayer in the United States. The median household income is a bit more than $50,000, meaning every household in America would need to dedicate almost three years of income just to cover the unpaid debt run up by politicians in Washington.
This $16 trillion in debt would be problematic enough on its own, even if the money had been spent wisely and resulted in a booming economy with full employment and rising household incomes. Unfortunately, this mountain of debt is compounded by the fact that the results of all of this runaway spending have been ineffective. Real unemployment sits at 15 percent, household incomes are in decline and our economy continues to struggle. It’s like Washington paid for a Porsche but got a Yugo.
We have 16 trillion reasons why now is the time to tackle the debt. On that point, few would disagree. The problems are obvious to everyone, and everyone in Washington — Democrat or Republican — claims to want to do something about them.
There are those — on both sides of the aisle — who have been willing to step up and offer plans to address this fiscal crisis. Sadly, every time someone has shown the political courage to articulate a plan, special interests and the politicians looking for a cheap score have gone after them.
In 2010, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan was unveiled. This framework for meaningful deficit reduction was crafted by a commission headed by a Republican, former Sen. Alan Simpson (Wyo.), and a Democrat, Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. While there is a lot of political nostalgia from both parties for the Simpson-Bowles plan, the truth is that it was dead on arrival.
Conservatives at the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform despised the tax provisions. Liberals in ivory towers such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities gagged on its cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other safety-net programs.
Simpson-Bowles wasn’t the only option that was derided.
Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) deficit reduction plan released in the spring of 2011 has met with even more intense opposition and demonization.
President Barack Obama, who so far has no plan of his own and rejected the Simpson-Bowles plan, attacked the Ryan plan as “social Darwinism.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the Ryan plan “a path to poverty for America’s seniors and children and a road to riches for big oil,” and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.) called it a “death trap.”
Neither Pelosi nor Wasserman Schultz has offered a deficit reduction plan.
If we are going to get serious about avoiding this impending fiscal crisis, then we need more than just campaign rhetoric. We need political courage from Members on both sides of the aisle.
We need to encourage more people to put forward plans that offer solutions to the complex and long-term financial challenges we face. We should encourage a meaningful debate over the policy.