- Home
- News
- Opinion
- Letters
- Sports
- Prospecting
- Essentials
- Obituaries
- Real Estate
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
Share Article
416
1,0994161,099
EDITOR:
We have several vocal liberals and conservatives that frequent the Mt. Democrat letters and comments section. For the liberals, I have yet to comprehend if they understand the magnitude of the financial problems facing our country. They seem to think that taxing the rich will solve everything. Here is the magnitude of the problem. If we stopped all federal discretionary spending tomorrow, that is shut down the government, we will still run a deficit. The sum total of Social Security, entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid, EBT, food stamps, etc.) and the interest on the debt exceeds revenues by over $10 billion. Discretionary spending involves defense, justice, energy, education, weather, agriculture, commerce, etc. The debt currently stands at about $16 trillion which is just about 104 percent of GDP. It is growing at a rate in excess of $1 trillion per year. A national debt that exceeds 90 percent of GDP causes a proportional decrease in the growth rate. Hence it becomes much harder to grow our way out of the problem. The unfunded future liabilities (promises) that we face from entitlements are many times this. We are on a path to fiscal ruin.
I thought Gov. Christie gave the best speech at the RNC. His basic message was to tell the truth to the public and the public will respond. Solving these financial problems will require sacrifice from all not just the 1 percent or the 10 percent. We are all part of the problem, hence we all must be part of the solution. We need to conduct a multi-front war.
1) Overhaul of our tax codes. Far too much money is wasted on circumventing them. The emphasis should be on revenue generation that is fair and uniform not on social engineering. Loopholes should be eliminated, that includes yours (mortgages, etc.).
2) Significantly increase domestic energy production of all forms, coal, nuclear, oil, gas, wind, solar, etc. Eliminate subsidies. Think of our domestic energy supplies as money in the bank that we can use to reduce our debts.
3) Reduce the size of government significantly. The Federal government operates many departments that are not sanctioned by the Constitution. Eliminate them. This can be done over a 10-year period with reductions in the impacted departments of 10 percent per year. In tough times, businesses reduce their workforce using the opportunity to clean out dead or weak departments and people. Government needs to do the same.
4) Critically evaluate all programs. If they are not accomplishing their missions, eliminate them. Failure should not be tolerated nor rewarded with continued funding.
5) The EPA is significantly exceeding its charter and needs to be reined in by Congress. Despite the court rulings, CO2 is not a pollutant and does not fall within the EPA’s charter. If such mandates are to be imposed, let our elected representatives do it.
6) We need to significantly reduce regulations that hamper businesses from expanding domestically. A new factory can be planned and built in China in weeks or a few months. It takes years here and frequently companies must fight off a hoard of lawsuits.
7) We need a serious discussion on Social Security, healthcare and other entitlements that does not involve the demagoguery that so often occurs.
I would welcome an intelligent discussion on fiscal responsibility.
TERRY TODD
Placerville
The Mountain Democrat does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
JohnSeptember 09, 2012 - 8:11 pm
Mr. Todd: An intelligent discussion is indeed needed and it can start as soon as the Republicans admit that Reagan and both Bushes left us with deficits that they're now trying to pin on Obama. Shifting one's own blame to the other guy, as Romney and Ryan are trying to do, is not the way to start an intelligent discussion.
JohnSeptember 09, 2012 - 8:16 pm
Mr. Todd: Reading your post a second time, I gather from the right wing buzzwords that pepper your letter that you are indeed not ready for a serious, much less intelligent, discussion. Such a discussion cannot occur if you think your ideology is the only way to go. That's Tea Party talk.
TerrySeptember 10, 2012 - 6:55 am
John, that was most helpful. Now post your ideas and suggestions.
robertdnollSeptember 10, 2012 - 8:51 am
Terry,his idea is to blame Bush and the Tea Party
Ken SteersSeptember 10, 2012 - 10:41 am
Mr Todd, An intelligent discussion requires at least two willing parties. It is a fact that the Bush's not only went along with the democrats but exacerbated the our budget deficit by adding programs like the prescription drug benefit for Medicare that is unfunded, two wars and sending "stimulus checks " out to the American people to "jump start" the economy. To spend money with a complete disregard of fiscal responsibility is wrong. Republicans did it too. Now to your solutions? I don't think the democrats like them too much.
Jack MartinSeptember 10, 2012 - 1:43 pm
John, Honest people can debate what, if any, impact the Reagan and Bush presidencies had on the situation Obama now finds himself in. The problem is that Obama has failed BY HIS OWN MEASURES. He stated that the would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Even if he had failed at that but done so with a valiant effort, I'd give him a pass. But he never took his foot off the accelerator. And he said that if he could not turn the economy around in three years then maybe he should be a one term President. Is the economy turned around? Not hardly. Did he close Gitmo? He got us out of Iraq (mostly) but threw us into Libya without even a thought toward Congressional approval. John readily dismisses all seven of Mr Todd's logically arrayed points, merely because he detected some "right wing buzzwords." That's a convenient (and weak) excuse not to dig in and do the hard work of research and presentation of substantiated, contrary factual information. But that's been John's M.O. for a very long time, because the aforementioned research is "just too hard."
CatherineSeptember 10, 2012 - 3:16 pm
Mr. Todd, You make some good points about reducing loopholes, but that won't be nearly enough. Government debt must be restructured, forgiven, or defaulted upon. The country is out of options, and it will be ugly, regardless of who holds the top seat. In voting with the Democratic Party, I hold a thread of hope that poor people's needs will be ever-so-slightly better considered in the process, so the country avoids mass homelessness and rioting.... I hope that isn't too dark.... Taxation *is* social engineering--it is redistribution of wealth for common cause. So consider this: If, as you suggest, we lay off 90% of the government (including bringing home military troops and contractors, who are government employees), what jobs will we have for these newly unemployed? Will the "job creators," who in your scenario will no longer be subject to EPA laws, line them up in little China-style pollution factories? Or would a federal works program focused on improving the country's infrastructure, education, social services, and food supply be a better solution? Our political parties differ in how they'd answer that question, if only by a thread.
TerrySeptember 10, 2012 - 7:14 pm
Catherine, thanks for the intelligent response. At least you realize how difficult the situation is. We cannot just cut our way out of the problem. We also need to grow the economy. But growth alone will not do it. Cuts and government restructuring may take one to two decades but it must start soon. I do not think that either party is advocating cutting off safety nets for the truly needy or turning the sky black. What we do need to do is become much more pragmatic about what we spend money on. First, and you are not guilty of this, who did what in the past is history and only important for the good and bad lessons to be learned. The only thing that counts is what we do from today forward. I do not advocate laying off 90% of the government. It was an example of just how bad the fiscal situation is. We still need defense and other necessary services. However, we do need to trim government significantly over the next decade. I would first look for low hanging fruit. Any program/department that has not met its goals would be put on a path to elimination. Any program/department that is not explicitly identified in the Constitution belongs to the states and should be similarly eliminated. For example, DOE has not attained its stated goal of energy independence since Carter created it. It is not constitutionally authorized. I would put it on a 10 year decline curve to elimination. With respect to taxes, I disagree with you on their purpose and on the whole philosophy of redistribution. Taxes should be for one purpose only, that is to raise revenue. Any other purpose invites all comers to petition for the peculiar exemption or loop hole. The net result is the mess we have now. Better to keep it simple so that everyone can understand it and guard against those that would abuse it via loop holes. Also look around at the plethora of taxes we have now. Every tax has a collection cost. It would be much more efficient to reduce significantly the number of nuance taxes and collect only the major ones. Example, the federal phone tax was implemented during WWI to pay for the war. We are still paying for it. Meanwhile, You are paying the phone company to calculate and collect pennies on every long distance call. Default on the debt could lead to catastrophic results. Debt that we owe to ourselves is another story. For example, the SS trust fund is a fictitious debt owed by the government to the government. If could be easily written off to reduce the debt by $2.4T immediately. Catherine thanks for the intelligent response and maybe we can get more people involved.