[SeMissourian.com] Fair ~ 50°F  
River stage: 21.76 ft. Falling
Monday, Apr. 27, 2015

Editorial: Deficit debate masks ideology

Monday, March 30, 2009

There has been some quibbling over the future of the national debt. The Obama administration contends that proposed spending for the next 10 years will add $7 trillion (with a T) to our fiscal burden. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Obama budget would tack on $9.3 trillion.

At his news conference last week, President Obama said two things that deserve closer scrutiny:

* He said he inherited $1.3 trillion in deficits created by Republicans. This is just one example of how the president likes to point to the failures of those who ran the government before he was sworn in Jan. 20. In this case, the pointed reference appeared to be a justification for compounding the debt burden well into the future. He is, in effect, saying the federal government must spend whatever it takes to impose education reforms, economic stimulus and national health care.

* He said his lower estimate of future deficits was based on a growth factor that is higher than the one used by the CBO. But, he added, the reality is that neither the administration nor the CBO has a clue about what that growth factor will be five years from now, much less 10 years.

This is how the nation's budget is compiled: Pick a figure, come up with a spending plan and assume the deficits will be enormous.

That's the tragedy of the federal government today. Most of us hear "trillion" without having any grasp of how much that is. And when a trillion increases by a factor of 10, the total is staggering.

So, $7 trillion or $9.3 trillion: What is it about the folks in Washington who think either of those stupendous amounts is good for the future of our nation?

The debate isn't about which figure is correct. In fact, both figures are potshots at prognostication. The real debate is about the scope of federal spending and the monumental changes in federal governance that are being proposed by the Obama administration and supported by a compliant Democratic majority in Congress.

At what point does the weight of deficits sink the ship of state?

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Here's a couple of ways to think of a trillion:

Every time our gov spends it, they lay a 3000.00 bill on every man, woman, and child in our country. Do it again, another 3000.00. Give 800B to HAMAS, cost us another couple of thousand. Those thousands add up.

Every time the gov prints a trillion, your dollar loses 10% of it's value when the inflation kicks in. Another trillion, another 10%. Currently, there's no end to printing money in site.

If you were to count to a billion, it would take you 95 years. A trillion is 1000 times larger than a billion and would take you 95000 years to count to a trillion.

This is a huge debt to our country. It can't be sustainable.

-- Posted by colliemom on Fri, Apr 17, 2009, at 5:14 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: