As politicians in Washington finger point, quickly casting blame without proposing solutions, the situation doesn't get any better. Of course, a large part of the problem is the ongoing recession. Revenues are typically lower in revenues (less tax revenue from less productive individuals, businesses, and property), and government outlays increase proportionally (more welfare for the unemployed, underemployed, and underinsured). But even conservative estimates predict $600 billion federal deficits in the coming few years. And those estimates assume a recovering economy and cessation of the Bush tax cuts. These deficits are not without consequence. The Congressional Budget Office has suggested the total federal debt taking up more than 75% of the GDP with the most favorable (and least likely) estimates. More realistic estimates predict a spiraling insane percentages nearing 200% of the total GDP.
What is this deficit made up of? The top three takers are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Military Defense. These three take a chunk of about $800 billion a year, and are followed by nearly $500 billion total of welfare payments. These four take up nearly $3 Trillion, more than current revenues, but around predicted future revenues (with an improving economy and increased taxes).
What is the answer to this deficit?
Well, if it was an individual, the answer would be very simple: Stop Spending. And, start cutting. But, Washington politicians are skittish about touching anything. It took the Republicans a double take to cut military...bands. And Congress can't agree to cut farm subsidies . Meanwhile, ineffective programs like the Department of Agriculture are bleeding away funds.
Partisan politics are enough.
Average Americans are having to learn to cut back. If their income dropped, they would cut back. No person could sustain spending 135% the rate of their spending. They would constantly increase their debt, never save, and dig a deeper hole. People have to make tough choices and cut back their spending. Sometimes it hurts. And when you are so far overbudget, it WILL hurt. America must do the same.
So, why doesn't Washington just slash everything? Of course, it's impracticable because of the difference between 'essential' and 'non-essential' programs. Eventually, though, everything becomes 'essential' and no one refuses to cut. It's enough. Just take a fixed percentage cut of every program--essential or not--(say 10%), and then deeper cuts of even more nonessential programs (say the Department of Agriculture).
Of course it will hurt. Conservatives will complain about cutting the defense budget. Sure, maybe we won't be able to afford as many F-22's or high-tech weaponry. But, if say for a few trillion dollars we don't have, we could create incredibly advanced weaponry, does that give us a right to field equipment that we cannot afford? It's money we don't have. Just because the Defense Dept has operated as a higher budget doesn't mean it deserves those programs, nor can we afford them. We can't. Yes, it will hurt capability. But that's what happens when you can't afford things.
Liberals will complain about "seniors" and "unemployed", but increasing unemployment benefits has never helped the problem. Instead the problem is just delayed until the new 99-week plan, or whatever new program, runs out. The people are still unemployed. And 'entitlements' pay nearly 3x in benefits for Medicare than what is contributed by the workers. There is no 'entitlement' to such gross gains in investment--especially when America is in such a difficult position.
Yes, it's difficult. Yes, it's drastic. But we have a drastic problem.
No one likes tighterning their belt--but if everyone has to tighten their belt, and watch their neighbor also having to cut back, it's a lot harder to cry foul. Everyone must suffer a little bit for the greater, and longer term good.
We don't have the money, and just because we made poor decisions in the past doesn't mean we "owe" it to people--we didn't have the money and never will. Cut these programs across the board. These cuts may need to be delayed a little--a gradual phaseout of 10%, for example--but it should be a cut nonetheless. A cut. Not a little scar. It's a cut. That's the cut that the deficit and national debt are putting into our US name and economy. That's the cut that we have to make to get out of this.
