Americans want low taxes and government largesse, and are ready to punish anyone
who says that's not possible. Is it any wonder politicians are afraid of hard
Now that the inaugural balls are over and the speeches and celebrations are finished, Washington returns to the task it's been struggling with for years amid partisan rancor and brinkmanship: how to solve the budget mess.
Our leaders have had little success in addressing the problem, so the debt load is now larger than the economy's annual output, at roughly $52,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.
There's a reason that the problem seems never-ending. And President BarackObama touched on it in his inauguration speech when he said that he rejected "the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future."
The problem is, we can't do both. Not so long as we hitch the government's finances -- via Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid -- to a bloated and inefficient health care system. Not while making needed investments in education and infrastructure, and providing for the national defense. And it can't be done while keeping taxes reasonable.
Thus, the bickering. The deficit commission. The congressional deficit committee. The fiscal cliff. The debt ceiling. The fact that the government hasn't operated under an actual budget since 2009. The recent flirtation with the "trillion dollar coin" idea. There is a real and growing threat that our fiscal procrastination will damage an already fragile economic recovery via a government shutdown, a debt default or a credit-rating downgrade.
So now, with the economy faltering again, continental Europe and Japan in new recessions and the United Kingdom slipping into one, too, we have politicians focused not on making hard choices to solve the problem but on finding ways to pin the blame on the other side. And it's going to get worse before it gets better.
A tough nut to crack
The political reality is that no one wants to be the bearer of bad news. No one wants to spell out the cuts that are needed. Part of the reason the Republicans lost the presidential race was because of their plan for Medicare vouchers and deep spending cuts. Even though the GOP approach would have taken a decade to balance the budget, even this fiscal tonic was too harsh for the electorate. Voters instead preferred Obama and his call that the rich "pay their fair share."
Americans want to believe that the days of ample spending, low taxes and easy credit can continue -- and they will punish anyone who tells them otherwise.
While Obama talked in his inauguration of making the "hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit" -- which has been $1 trillion or larger for the past four years and likely will be for at least two more years -- no one wants to put pen to paper to outline the reforms that are needed.
Obama's 2013 budget proposal, the only working budget document we have from the Democrats, did nothing to address the long-term debt, as the chart below, lifted from that proposal, shows. That's because it doesn't propose the structural reforms that are needed to control costs associated with the aging of baby boomers.
I wonder what president would possess the bawlz to actually pursue this. I have heard nothing about debt earmarks from this administration, after all, that would Obama's "Messiah" status. You would think he would at least manuever health care to single payer status. What would that hurt?