No better term exists to encompass the worst that can happen due to the reckless expansion of federal government and irresponsible borrowing to finance it.
I am extremely concerned about the spending trends in Washington, D.C., and taxpayers should be equally disturbed. In under six months, the government has obligated trillions in new spending. Like every other taxpayer in Missouri, I see the bill coming for this spree and ask, how are we supposed to pay for this? The answer, of course, is that we are not -- this debt explosion will belong to generations and generations of our children, and their children, and so on.
The idea that we can defer debt for years and years is just as dangerous as the thought that we can pin the tab for government's largesse on working American men and women in this or any other generation.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal spending will outweigh federal revenue (gained mainly from taxes) by $1.7 trillion this year -- a figure equal to 12 percent of our national economic output. As a percentage of gross domestic product, this will be the largest deficit since World War II.
The national deficit and the national debt travel hand in hand. At the end of this federal fiscal year we will face $12 trillion in national debt. The interest on that sum in a single year amounts to $565 billion. A debt explosion, indeed.
Solutions to this situation fall into three categories. First, some say we need more spending and another stimulus, even though the first stimulus has failed to deliver on the sweet promises of jobs and recovery that accompanied it. Second, some want to raise taxes, on energy, on greenhouse gases, on income, and on health-care benefits, placing the burden for more spending squarely on taxpayers. Finally, there is the responsible course, the one my family and every other family in Southern Missouri takes when money gets tight: contain the debt explosion by spending less.
At a national level, out-of-control debt means unheard-of challenges to U.S. currency on the world market and a cold reception for any new U.S. debt. In the short term, it is good to discourage U.S. borrowing from foreign countries, but the proper way to do so is to offer less debt -- not to flood the market with it. Doing so would cause Americans to experience a shrinking share of global wealth and jobs.
The debt explosion also contains many silent dangers, and the greatest of them is this: As interest rates climb, they may as much as double the cost of federal borrowing in the next year. When high interest rates compound and grow, the interest on our national debt could grow from $565 billion to such a large annualized amount that it would be nearly impossible to pay off.
Just like a credit card balance that gets out of hand, the national debt is inviting a multitrillion-dollar disaster caused solely by interest rates.
If instead we check the bank book before we buy, our children will thank us and more American opportunities will stay right here in America if we can pose this simple test before we spend a dollar. In 2009, we have learned how much the word stimulus can cost us, and we have also learned the danger of pinning our hopes on government spending to create an economic recovery.
Proponents of the stimulus package are now saying they "miscalculated" its effect on the economy. I suppose that is the closest thing we are going to get to an apology. In the meanwhile, the debt explosion gets worse every day we don't stand up for economic sense.
Jo Ann Emerson of Cape Girardeau represents Missouri's 8th District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)

But Dick Cheney said that Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.
Actually, I agree with your op-ed.
Way to go Jo Ann! I know you were in congress when all this happened and I doubt that you voted for it!
Throwing money at a problem has never worked. Even if it did, what happens when the free money runs out? The only thing that has ever stimulated the economy is TAX CUTS, not tax increases.
People with venture capital, have to have some expectation they are going to be able to make some money and keep a portion of it before they are going to risk their money to start with! All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes. That's right you "Joe Cool". Lets imagine that you, "Joe Cool can invest just $50.00 and make some money.
Now, while we are talking about this investment lets further imagine that if you invest this $50.00, you can expect to make $25.00 gain in one year. You might actually decide this is a good idea...until the IRS comes along and says WHOA..you have to pay us 50% of this $25.00, oh..and we forgot to tell you there is a surtax on that $12.50.
I think that most anyone can see, pretty soon you just don't gain enough to risk your $50.00! Guess what? This is called a recession! The company you were going to invest in now no longer has the money to pay that employee who was going to increase their output of goods and services. Since he does not have a job anymore, he don't spend what he would have on other products, so those companies lay off people etc etc etc.
All we and our legislators have to do is THINK!
The answer will come!
Walkenstick
Way to go Jo Ann! I know you were in congress when all this happened and I doubt that you voted for it!
Throwing money at a problem has never worked. Even if it did, what happens when the free money runs out? The only thing that has ever stimulated the economy is TAX CUTS, not tax increases.
People with venture capital, have to have some expectation they are going to be able to make some money and keep a portion of it before they are going to risk their money to start with! All you have to do is put yourself in their shoes. That's right you "Joe Cool". Lets imagine that you, "Joe Cool can invest just $50.00 and make some money.
Now, while we are talking about this investment lets further imagine that if you invest this $50.00, you can expect to make $25.00 gain in one year. You might actually decide this is a good idea...until the IRS comes along and says WHOA..you have to pay us 50% of this $25.00, oh..and we forgot to tell you there is a surtax on that $12.50.
I think that most anyone can see, pretty soon you just don't gain enough to risk your $50.00! Guess what? This is called a recession! The company you were going to invest in now no longer has the money to pay that employee who was going to increase their output of goods and services. Since he does not have a job anymore, he don't spend what he would have on other products, so those companies lay off people etc etc etc.
All we and our legislators have to do is THINK!
The answer will come!
Walkenstick
Joann, where was your letter to the SEMissourian when Bush was spending all the money? You Republicans are not opposed to the spending, you are opposed to who benefits from the spending. The Republican party is the chief oppressor of the poor and disadvantaged and love to spend the taxpayer dollar as long as it goes into the pockets of corporations like Halliburton.
Some people JUST DON'T GET IT!
ithenana, have you ever worked for a "poor" man?
Our system works on the basis that some people (or companies) have money and they hire people to make more money, consequently those poor people you speak of, wind up with jobs.
When I was young and idealistic I was actually a democrat, but once I got out in the real world and figured out that my boss could not make my paycheck clear the bank unless he had some money in the bank, I understood. I do not call myself a republican to this day, I just call myself a conservative!
ithenana and Walkenstick: The problem is not Democrat vs. Republican. The problem has to do with government spending this country into oblivion. Government benefits from expansion of problems, and not by solving them. If need be it will invent a crisis in order to expand.
As usual, James ... the Voice of Reason ...
This 'Republican vs Democrat' rhetoric does little or nothing to solve any of the problems we face ... have been facing for decades. The divisiveness we are taught by the party leaders will solve absolutely nothing. But ... it certainly seems to work with a lot of people ... easier than thinking for themselves, I guess.
As for ithenana's comment, I will say ... along 'party lines' ... that generally the Republican Party tends to believe that the best way 'the poor' can better themselves is with help that actually encourages them to do so. The Democratic Party tends to believe that it is better to give 'the poor' help that discourages them from bettering themselves. This doesn't necessarily mean they are more 'compassionate,' but instead that they realize 'the poor' seem to vote usually along Democratic lines.
Should have finished that off by suggesting that "... the chief oppressor of the poor and disadvantaged ..." is perhaps more the Democratic Party itself, which uses the 'poor and disadvantaged' more than any other single effort to garner support from the public.
Where are the jobs from the MASSIVE Bush tax cuts?
How well is our economy faring under the Bush plan, whose effects we are still feeling today?