http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
Wrong, the easy answer is the correct one. Congress spends more than it takes in. So spend less and you will balance the budget or even create a surplus to buy down some of the debts. The deficit is about 1.6 trillion. Cutting 90% out of the budget for the Military Industrial Complex will leave about 200 billion left. Then there is the war on drugs, the vast waste of money spent complying with regulations, etc where 200 billion could easily be spared.
And there would be a boom in the economy as hundreds of thousands of people drawing their living from the tax payers will be put in the private sector to create wealth instead of destroying it.
The problem for Congress is that it lives by stealing money from one group and giving it to another. But this is a bad deal for all as Congress has to take a cut of the money, normally about 2/3 of the revenue. So Congress does the easy thing and simply finds some other sucker to foot the bill. This of course works for a period of time but the lenders get tired of ever expanding debts. Then the Congress uses money creations via a central bank but that of course also fails as the distortions from money unbacked by real savings causes malinvestments in the structure of production.
I saw that too when someone posted that comparison of "policy changes under two presidents" chart and said "THANK YOU":
1) Anyone who ever calls a tax cut a "cost" automatically loses a lot of credibility if you ask me. Unless you want to argue that every dollar you earn belongs to the government, which then decides how much you get to keep, then there is no way to call letting people keep more of their own money (aka "tax cut") a "cost." 2) That thing carries out projections until 2017...and it basically assumes that the federal government of the United States will not spend any more money on any new programs or policy changes for the next 6 YEARS. Is there anyone who honestly believes that? 3) Notice how it is strategically framed to only focus on what they consider "new policies". No mention is made of increases in spending in current or older policies...because of course if we did that, we would see that while Bush was the biggest spender since LBJ, Obama is projected to spend literally $1 Trillion more PER YEAR than even Bush did. (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt) & (http://tinyurl.com/6kl42up) 4) $152 Billion on "health reform and entitlements"? Who the hell are they kidding? The CBO has clearly stated Obamacare will be over $2 Trillion. (http://tinyurl.com/y9n53w2)
Good response, JJ. One loose end though: How does the author get away with saying Federal spending on Education has remained flat?? Spending on Education has soared by all measures since 1970. Where is she getting that?
Notice it's not the spending...she says "flat as a share of the economy for decades." Meaning, the percent of GDP. As long as GDP goes up (which can easily be accomplished by increasing the money supply) then spending on anything can go up and still remain "flat as a share of the economy".