The Budget Debate (Again) July 2011

…“to ourselves and our posterity"…

As the churlish and childish wrangling continues unabated over the configuration of the debt ceiling legislation, it is time to once again look towards the founders and the framers for proper guidance and wisdom to resolve the infantile political logjam.

There is no single solution that can be provided by either political extreme; as always, the proper course must be guided by pragmatic compromise.

That solution is easily at hand.

A look at recent history, however, shows the folly of blind compromise, a solution that was no solution at all but rather nonsensical gibberish that has done nothing but fuel the current financial distress. Moving the problem forward in time has been the prevailing option for the past several decades; such choices must end.

To wit:

There are those who claim that the balanced budgets and surpluses of the late 1990’s were squandered and plundered by subsequent administrations. This is ridiculous after even the most cursory examination of the reality of those budgets. The balance claim is supported only by accounting gimmickry that a fourth grader with an abacus could easily discount. The surplus, based upon the budget claims could also be disproved simply by noting that such assertions were based upon cuts that were scheduled for a future date uncertain.

If we accept that a balanced budget and surplus could be realistically attained simply by promising to cut future spending, no rational American who needs to balance their checkbook monthly would ever pay their debts; they would merely send out IOU’s and promise to send in the money later, once they cut out the unnecessary parts of their household budget.

The American public can no longer accept this type of fiduciary mismanagement.

The founders have provided us with the framework of a reasoned and acceptable compromise for those who claim that only cuts or only raising taxes are the solely acceptable solution. Neither option is realistic or financially sound.

Given that the political class always seems to enact the income side first, with cuts scheduled for later, the debt ceiling legislation can be easily worded to accommodate all sides, and rejected only by those who are either imbeciles, politically cowardly, or both.

The legislation could be so structured to first provide the government with a proper audit of the operating, or direct overhead, costs required to run the government, to be completed by a date certain, perhaps three months hence. This can be the first place to discover cost savings and provide a blueprint to begin required budget cuts.  The second tier would be cuts that both sides seem ready to accept, apparently in the area of two trillion dollars.

Once these cuts have been fully enacted, the legislation could then provide for eliminating non essential tax breaks for corporations and other entities that are being supported on the public dole.

The last part of the legislation would be revenue increases. They would be mandated by discovering the cost of government. If there are budgetary increases needed, the American electorate could at least be assured that such revenue increase are as a last resort; all the outstanding waste and frivolity has been eliminated. The American people could then accept the deal because all other options have been explored and utilized.

The founders trust in American democracy and self-rule for themselves and their posterity would be well founded and well deserved and we could continue to pass along a nation financially secure for ourselves and our posterity.