National debt is a time bomb | Guest Opinion

As a lesson for life, my father used to tell a story about a guy driving 120 mph straight toward a concrete wall. Being so thrilled with his speed, he kept the pedal to the metal until his moment of demise.

The official figure for the fiscal 2019 federal deficit is $984 billion. But there are certain “off budget” expenditures left out of this official tabulation. When they’re included, the actual increase in the U.S. deficit last year was about $1.1 trillion, bringing our total national debt to more than $23 trillion!

This fiscal year, the deficit is forecasted to be even higher, and when the economy eventually slows down, our annual deficits could be pushing $2 trillion a year! This is financial madness.

The long-term cause of this budgetary disaster is not excessive growth in federal spending, which is actually moderate relative to other advanced nations. Instead, these ominous deficits are the result of irresponsible and unnecessary tax cuts, which have predominantly benefited the wealthy.

Former President Ronald Reagan kicked off the tax-cutting game in the early 1980s. George W. Bush resumed the pastime in 2001. Then Donald Trump renewed the toxic process in January 2018. It’s astounding that a leader could crow so loudly about an economy pushed along each year by the expenditure of over a trillion dollars he does not have.

I ask, with respect, where are the Tea Party protesters? They were very clear eight years ago that fighting the accruement of national debt and protecting the Constitution were their motivations.

In a recent Tri-City Herald opinion column (11/22/19), conservative tax-cutting champion Grover Norquist argued that federal spending should be curtailed to match current tax revenues.

So, what would it mean for us to slash over a trillion dollars from the federal budget? Hanford cleanup would likely experience a large cut, as well as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and other investments in science. Millions of people who need help would be left out in the cold. There might be a reduction in agricultural supports, hurting farmers. Defense spending could be trimmed. Social Security and Medicare cuts would be on the table. Our economy would probably go into recession. In reality, governmental expenditures help to ensure a society’s quality of life, which is why other nations have them too.

Moreover, federal expenditures are today the same percentage of GDP that they were in the mid-1980s. This shows that there is not, in actuality, excessive growth in federal outlays.

When people bewail “runaway governmental spending,” it’s generally clear that (1) they’re missing vital information, and (2) they aren’t advocating fewer resources for themselves. Instead, what they desire is less federal money to be spent on other people. But isn’t this approach both morally objectionable and attainably unrealistic given other people have congressional representation too?

In short, for numerous reasons, there’s not going to be a drastic cut in federal expenditures — that is, until we go broke — nor are we going to “grow our way” out of this predicament. Therefore, to gain control of this looming debt, we’re going to have to raise taxes. Moreover, the tax rates will have to be increased the most on the people and entities that have the money: the rich and the corporate.

Unfortunately, Republicans have made this solution nearly impossible, for within their own party, tax increases are considered the mother of all abominations. And, as for Democrats, it’s difficult to survive politically if you’re associated with tax increases, however necessary they may be.

In a letter to the Tri-City Herald editor, Donna Powers of Richland asked if I could illuminate a “middle of the road” solution to our political and economic woes. I will try: Most Republican politicians are clearly going to crash us going 120 mph into that concrete wall. Their imaginary solution is massive federal spending cuts in other peoples’ districts. On the far left, I don’t see the proposed policies of Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren working well either. They can’t explain how they’d pay for their programs.

In contrast, moderate politicians on both sides of the aisle showing acknowledgment and concern over rising debt, economic inequality, and environmental degradation are our best bet to return to some type of sanity and social responsibility.

This story was originally published January 6, 2020 at 12:17 PM with the headline "National debt is a time bomb | Guest Opinion."