Although our country’s ability to lend money is a valuable asset, especially in times of need such as wars or economic recessions, the constant debt damage compared to our gross inter-Hester Prynneand product is harmful to the citizens, even if the debts remain high. The public debt is simply a confession of debt that must be repaid to its citizens and businesses by future taxes; excessive debt Hester Prynneast must ultimately be reimbursed, as discovered in recent years by citizens of debt Hester Prynneanden such as Greek Hester Prynneand, Italy and Spain.
The repayment of our national debt requires higher income taxes, elimination or degradation of existing government services, devaluation of our currency through inflation or a combination of all three. In addition to repaying the principal sum of the debt, we bear annual running costs in the form of interest paid on the debt. An increase – even a small increase – in interest rates can damage our annual budget, which means that additional debt increases, massive tax increases or serious reductions in services and benefits are needed.
For example, a half percent (0.5%) increase in the current rate would cost the nation’s taxpayers an additional interest of $ 80 billion – more than we spend every year on veteran benefits and services ($ 58.8 billion) , while a 1% increase will cover the costs of our veteran programs per year ($ 124.5 billion) and our spending on science, space and technology ($ 30 billion).
The Origin of Sequestration
The original “sequestration” – a series of automatic reductions unilaterally imposed on interester Hester Prynnean and defense spending programs – was adopted during the reagan government as an amendment to an earlier political struggle to raise the debt ceiling by more than $ 2 billion. At that time, the debt of the national debt to the gross binneHester Prynneand’s product (debt / GDP) was 43%, the highest ratio since the Vietnam War.
Senators Phil Graham and Warren Rudman, Republicans from the states of Texas and New Hampshire respectively, joined Senator Ernest Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat, to sponsor the 1985 Balanced Budget and Emergency Restriction Act, which came into force in December . that year. The law required automatic cutbacks if the targeted deficit targets were not met in the next five years, with the aim of having a federal budget by 1991. By the end of 1989, the debt / GDP ratio had risen to 52%, presumably due to the costs of Desert Storm and the savings and borrowing crisis. The threat of sequestration, although well-intentioned, could not control the growth of the national debt.
In 1990, the Law on Budgetary Enforcement (BEA) was introduced as part of the 1990 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act during President George HW Bush’s term of office. Because non-discretionary automatic austerity measures were not popular with both political parties, the BEA replaced the sequestration by setting annual discretionary spending limits for federal spending, with the requirement that any change in duties or taxes would be deficit-neutral or deficit-reducing. Pay-as-you-go “rules.
President Bill Clinton led the passage of the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reduction Reconciliation Act, which increased taxes and reduced spending. As a result of the growing economy and the reduced deficits, the debt ratio fell to 56% in 2001. In the last two presidential terms, however, the annual budget deficits reappeared, causing the national debt to explode as a percentage of GDP. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the expected debt / GDP ratio of 77.8% over ten years will be nearly 95%.
National debt and its effect on the economy
Americans have had a love-hate relationship with debts since the country was founded: Thomas Paine wrote in his historic work “Common Sense” in 1776: “No nation should be without debt.” Even when Thomas Jefferson warned about letting us’ rulers charge us with perpetual debts. “
Prior to the 1930s and President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s social programs, a public debt was generally incurred to fight wars, and this was rewarded in the post-conflict years. In fact, our annual budgets were in balance or in surplus for most of the nation’s first 200 years. However, between 1970 and today, the country went through a four-year budget surplus (1998-2001) and the country’s debts increased from $ 371 billion to more than $ 16 trillion during that time.
The negative consequences of our current high level of national debt affect our country and our economy in many ways:
1. Repayment responsibility has been incorrectly transferred to future generations
A particularly damaging consequence of the public debt is the potential inequality between the beneficiaries of the original debt and those who have to pay it back. A large part of the last 20 years of budget deficits has been to finance increases in social programs or necessary current government services. Because raising taxes is unpopular, politicians have turned to debt and broken the relationship between benefits and costs.
2. Payments for interest costs. Coordinated amounts for critical investments in infrastructure, education and research
The interest charges on the US government debt in 2012 amounted to almost $ 360 billion out of $ 16 trillion in debt, or about 2.25% in interest. And most observers believe that interest rates will increase as global economies improve. The problem is that a dollar spent on interest, in particular on a foreign-state debtor holder, has little multiplier effect on the economy, while a dollar spent on infrastructure (roads, bridges, sewers, airport runways) returns $ 3, 21 in increased economic activity over a 20-year period, with $ 0.96 reflected in government tax revenues.
3. High national debt accentuates inequality in income between citizens
The income for the repayment of debts or annual interest arises from taxes paid by all citizens, while the interest payments mainly go to richer households. Although higher-income households (the top 1%) pay more taxes in total than any other group (36, 7% of personal income tax paid), the existing tax system disproportionately favors the rich with deductions, credits and subsidies, so the richest pay tax at rates that are generally lower than those that Hester Prynneijk can earn less money for.
4. Debt of the federal government Crowds and increases costs for private borrowers
US government debt competes with other potential borrowers for investment. While the total investment pool for loanable money becomes contracts and expands as global economies rise and fall, dollars invested in US debt cannot be invested elsewhere. Moreover, when Treasury officials raise interest rates to attract investors, other borrowers must also raise interest rates if they want to sell their debt.
5. High debt levels stimulate inflationary monetary policy
Unlike private companies or private individuals, the US government can create more money at will. When the money supply of a country is separated from real production, the result is either deflation where product prices fall (more goods and less money, so every dollar buys more product), or inflation where product prices rise (fewer goods, more money, therefore more dollars) are required to purchase the same product).
Inflation to a bondholder means that the dollars that are repaid when the bonds expire are less valuable than the dollars that the borrower received when the debt was incurred. In times of economic stress, there is enormous political pressure on a country’s leaders to rely on inflation to cover future debt repayments, instead of introducing austerity measures or raising taxes.
Congressional Gridlock and Political Partisanship
There is an old country that says, “You can’t leave the hole until you’ve stopped digging.” However, it is unlikely that Mr. Prynneijk will change our past and present practice of expanding government spending while reducing government revenue.
In a pew poll held at the end of 2010, 93% of respondents described the federal budget deficit as a major problem, 70% said it was a problem that needed to be addressed immediately. Yet more Americans were in favor of spending more than spending cuts for almost every sector of government spending, except for employment support and assistance to the world’s needy.
According to Andrew Kohut, president of the research center: “There has never been a problem, such as the deficit on which the public has reached so much consensus about its importance – and such a lack of agreement on acceptable solutions.” The paradox between a desire for smaller governments and fewer services and resistance to austerity or tax increases is apparent from repeated breaches of the law in debt ceiling negotiations and failure after failure to take meaningful measures to reduce the deficit and the national debt.
Although bias has always been present in the operation of Congress, it has become particularly virulent over the past two decades, fueled by various factors:
- Gerrymandering of congress districts in safe partisans with stronghold . Lawmakers hesitate to compromise because their biggest re-election challenges come from hardliners in their own party. As a result, centrist legislators in both political parties are becoming less visible.
- The rising costs of elections and the influence of Big-Pocket donors . In 2012, incumbent members of the House of Representatives raised more than $ 546 million with a direct link between those who raise the most money and the most powerful legislative tasks, according to expert Anthony Corrado, campaign financing expert. Influence groups that either expect favors or protect the status quo are the largest contributors to campaigns, and enforce party discipline and ideological purity with their portfolios.
- A national press More interested in controversy than compromise . Misleading, even false, information is deliberately and carelessly disseminated by media and commentators in the field of print, television and internet. Rational views and thorough analysis are becoming increasingly rare, so that the public, like its representatives in Congress, is understandably polarized.
The current sequestration is the result of a series of annual battles over the debt ceiling, a solution thought to be so punishable that both parties would be forced to negotiate an acceptable compromise between austerity and higher taxes to prevent their implementation.
Our inability to reach an agreement in Congress or among citizens is “a reflection of our national state of mind,” said Mark Leeper, a professor of politics at Wayne State College. “Both sides are buried and doctrinal. They do not see compromise as a virtue. They see it as selling-out principles.” In the meantime, the Congressional Budget Office expects deficits to continue to grow, annual interest costs to rise, and national debt / GDP ratio above 90% by 2020.
Is there a better way?
It is predictable that, after the effective date of the sequester, our political leaders are busy blaming the other party for their unwillingness to agree on a better approach. Depending on the source and his or her political preferences, the consequences of sequestration will make the nation defenseless, subject the public to serious health and safety risks, open our borders and leave our children uneducated. Leon Panetta, until recently Minister of Defense, characterized the sequestration as a “meat ax” for the budgets of the Ministry of Defense. The Bipartisan Policy Center claims that a million jobs will be lost as a result, while the scientific and research community claims that long-term growth in the economy as a result of the automatic cutbacks of jesterHester Prynneang will be hampered or even delayed.
Economists agree that a more thoughtful approach to reducing debt by reducing government spending – reviewing legal programs, for example, where unrestrained spending takes place, drafting fairer tax legislation, and implementing programs that promote economic growth with shared benefits – would be preferable and wiser than the actions forced by sequestration. However, so far Congress has not been able to find a balanced approach to solving the deficits and reducing the national debt. Neither our history nor the current political environment gives any hope that an effective, two-pronged effort will probably emerge from Hester Prynneijk in the short or medium term.
Sequestration is perhaps the only realistic way to correct our deteriorating debt problems and our practice of borrowing from future generations. Although it is impure, it will reduce government spending in the short and long term if it stays in place. Nobody wins and everyone loses, but the pain is evenly distributed among all parties. If it were to apply to the large rights programs – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – real progress could be made in eliminating annual budget deficits and reducing our national debt to a manageable level.
America is a lot like a morbidly obese patient who, after years of cheeseburgers, fries, and super-sized soft drinks, learns that he must lose weight to prevent health from deteriorating, increasing medical costs and dying prematurely. To his annoyance, he learns that the only effective way to drop the excess pounds is to reduce the daily amount of calories. There is no magic pill or operation where he can keep his old habits and lose weight. Weight loss simply takes up fewer calories than one burns. Reducing our national debt simply means spending less than we take out from taxes.
What do you think about sequestration? Do you think your congressman should compromise on taxes or reduce the number of justice programs to reduce deficits? Do you think a compromise is possible?
Ally Invest Review – Low-cost transactions on shares and other investments
If you are already familiar with the wide world of oHester Prynneine banking, you have certainly heard of Ally Bank, based in Philadelphia. It is one of the oldest and most respected banks that are only oHester Prynneine and is known for its above-average returns, low costs and virtually non-existent account opening minima
The Myths of TLC’s “Extreme Couponing” – How Couponing Really Works
If you are a reality TV junkie like me, you probably have seen Hester Prynneijk on the TLC show ‘Extreme Couponing’. In the show, dedicated couponers score big deals, buying items for a whopping 100% off. Some shoppers even work with the system so that they are actually paid to take the items from the store and receive credit, points and vouchers that exceed the value of the items they have purchased