The debt is now so huge that it if we paid it back at a rate of a dollar a second it would take 416,000 years just to pay back the principal. It is this massive debt and the interest on it which is causing the economic decline we are currently experiencing, because while families and businesses are cutting their costs and scrimping and saving and not spending, government continues to spend out of control and put us further and further into debt. The inevitable result of this will be massive increases in taxes so long as the administration and congressional Democrats lack the good sense to actually cut spending. For decades to come Americans will suffer under debt which will retard economic growth and tax the people beyond their ability to pay.
As I write this it's probably already too late to do anything to stop this abomination. But from this point forward we have to demand accountability. Every Senator and Representative who voted for this budget and for the Stimulus bills must be voted out of office in the next election. We need to replace them with congressmen with the vision to rethink how our government operates and the will to make cuts which are unpopular with special interests so that they can start to lift this unsupportable burden of debt from the American people.
It's time to press "reset" on our government and go back to the beginning and start over building a government limited to the essentials exactly as George Washington did in 1789. It may seem extreme, but I think that maybe the only way to deal with this situation is to disband the entire federal bureaucracy and shut down every federal government program and start over. It would even be worth it to give federal employees several months of paid leave to find a new job. Then restart the government from scratch. Eliminate as many programs and departments as possible and assign as many of the remaining responsibilities as we can to the state governments. Then reestablish only the essential functions of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution — national defense, some basic regulation and foreign policy. It took us 200 years to get to this point, and if we go back and start over maybe we can keep this country economically viable for a few more.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Christine
Reset, yes. They not only need to find new jobs, but should be sent to "debt rehab".
$ 1 2 , 1 0 4 , 1 6 9 , 2 4 5 , 2 8 5 . 7 4 ? Is this the current U.S. National Debt Clock number?
2 - Dan(Miller)
Couldn't the United States just throw in a trillion or so more and save the earth from the horrors of "climate change?" Good grief! It's only money, and it's obviously for a good cause. Otherwise, our astute leaders wouldn't do it.
Besides, [fill in the blanks].
Dan(Miller)
3 - roger nowosielski
Astute leaders indeed! The whole thing is a farce.
4 - Christine
And to add insult to injury, didn't some in government jobs get raises during a recession?
5 - Christine
Oops, link didn't work...
For feds, more get 6-figure salaries
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
6 - Dan(Miller)
Roger, I agree that it is a farce, and assume that you detected the irony in my Comment #2. Unfortunately, it is not a funny farce. It is a tragic one. I would prefer Abbot and Costello, but they, sadly, are dead.
I see no way out of the morass; perhaps there is one, but I don't know what, how or when. As long as our "elected public servants" continue to bribe us with our own money, and we continue to accept it with gratitude, we are damned.
Dan(Miller)
7 - Bryan(Michigan)
The United States has allocated approximately 1.5 billion dollars for Pakistan in its budget
8 - freeman(Texas)
I am down for the accountability part. How did they vote (names). I'm for spending money on the campaigns of those who oppose them in the next election
9 - Karen
Every Democrat voted for the bill except 3.
Included in the bill:
* A 2% pay raise for federal employees (1 of every 5 federal employees earns more than $100,000 per year)
* $648.5 million funding for “international family planning” an increase of $103 million over Fiscal Year 2009.
* $55 million for The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (colluded with China to force abortions and sterilizations)
* Gives the D.C. local government federal funds to pay for elective abortions in D.C.
10 - Karen
AND
approximately 1.5 billion dollars for Pakistan
11 - Lumpy
Just for the record the budget passed this afternoon. As far as I'm concerned these democrats should be horsewhipped from office.
12 - Dr Dreadful
Nice to see you showing a healthy respect for democracy, Lumpy.
13 - Glenn Contrarian
Congratulations, Dave - everyone bought your figures without doing any homework to see if those figures are true.
According to this Excel table from the Office of Management and Budget, your claim that "All of this spending adds up to a total increase over last year's budget of 10%, the largest one-year increase in history and the largest percentage increase since the 1930s" is misleading. For instance, are you referring only to increases in discretionary spending? If so, then 10% is NOT a record at all. Furthermore, it was BUSH who approved across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama, OTOH, has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975.
You are also not taking into account the FACT that stimulus packages and/or increased taxes are precisely what American presidents since 1900 - INCLUDING Reagan (who raised corporate taxes) and Bush 41 ("Read my lips - no new taxes") - used to pull the economy out of recession.
The economic mess that was handed to Obama last January was worsened by the Iraq war (which you supported)...but at least Bush didn't expand the 'War on Terrorism' to other countries (as you suggested he should do).
But I suppose that sticking to provable fact and learning the lessons of history is something relegated to those oh-so-treasonous Democrats.
14 - Ruvy
Glenn, you should ditch that "contrarian" label of yours. When it comes to Obama you are the least contrary creature I've ever seen. Just because the guy has black skin doesn't mean you have to bust a gut bending over backwards to defend him. Under that black skin of his is a white elitist who holds you and yours in contempt and who thinks he's better - and who barely bothers to hide his hauteur.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Ruvy -
I notice that instead of comparing Dave's claims to the FACTS that I presented (with good references), you simply brush me off as an Obamaphile.
I deal in FACT, Ruvy. Some of what Dave claimed was not factual, and I pointed it out. Present to me referenced, provable FACTS showing that Dave's right and I'm wrong.
But you won't do that, will you? All the hard-and-fast facts in the world don't matter because they don't fit your belief.
As far as me being an Obamaphile, does it make me an O-phile for using OMB stats as proof? Or for pointing out that Reagan and Bush raised taxes to get us out of recession? Or for pointing out that BUSH approved a federal pay raise for 2009 50% LARGER than the one that Obama approved for 2010?
But since these are FACTS and not extremist rhetoric, you assume I'm an Obamaphile.
But I'm not. He hasn't closed down Gitmo. He hasn't prosecuted American torturers. He refused to use the 51-vote 'reconciliation' to pass true Universal Health Care even though we have the votes.
BUT in the larger scheme of things, he's performed very well despite the crap sandwich he was handed on 1/20/09.
I know it's useless to try to ask this of the BC conservatives such as yourself, but would you PLEASE learn to let FACT determine your belief, rather than insisting that your belief must determine the facts....
16 - handyguy
Note that while Republicans piously voted [and railed] against the bill, they made sure to put plenty of their own earmarks into it first.
A cynical way to look at the bill is that it furnishes a high water mark from which the administration will begin to reduce spending in next year's budget [for fiscal 2011]. This will be highly publicized during an election year.
A non-cynical way to look at it is that most of the spending, especially the larger items, is for worthy and useful projects. Of course, our conservative friends want to believe that all government spending is wasteful, so any increase at all is appalling.
But as Glenn pointed out using the example of the pay increase, there is a sharp difference between rhetoric and reality.
The Democrats won the 2008 election. This is their prerogative. It's not illegal. But it does provide convenient yelling points for conservatives. Yawn.
17 - handyguy
Fun facts about the bill that just passed the Senate:
Democrats Voting No:
Bayh, Ind.; Feingold, Wis.; McCaskill, Mo.
Republicans Voting Yes:
Cochran, Miss.; Collins, Maine; Shelby, Ala.
3 D's and 5 R's did not vote. "Deficit hawk" Joe Lieberman voted for the bill.
The much-decried earmarks amounted to $3.9 billion, which is 0.345% of the total.
And this bill is only 6/12 of the total budget. 5 earlier pieces have already been signed by the president. The defense authorization is yet to come.
18 - Cindy
Aside from financial issues, Dave...what about the renewal of the three patriot act provisions that were set to expire. I was hoping you'd put out an article on that subject. Perhaps it is in the works? (hoping)
19 - John Wilson
Were Nalle, Miller, etc., vocal when Bush was sending $6trillion direct to the bottom line as debt and depreciating the dollar by 40%? I thought not.
Born-again deficit hawks cannot be believed.
20 - Cindy
It would even be worth it to give federal employees several months of paid leave to find a new job.
That is funny.
21 - Cannonshop
ISTR that Nalle had a couple three articles about GW's spending sprees, and there's a vast number of Republican voters who didn't show up in 2006 or 2008 for the Congressional elections because of a Republican congress spending like Teddy K and John Murtha on a three-day drunket to Bangkok.
Notably, there are several republican "Representatives" who didn't get the memo in spite of all the tea-bagging, but notably three Dem congresscritters DID.
Notably also: the only people who thought Bush's bailout of the Banks was a good idea on BC?
Glenn Contrarian, Mr. Rose, Handyguy, and their fellows on the left. Apparently Corporate Socialism is just fine, if "The WON" endorses it.
One should hardly expect people who've never had to balance their own chequebooks or fight out from under personal debt to understand why it's a bad idea to rack up MORE debt by spending MORE money than can be collected in reciepts. The residents of Congress have NEVER (for the most part) been anything but rich...especially the democrats.
They've always had assistants to handle the bills (not that they do it particularly well) and taxes...of course, Democrats don't PAY taxes like the rest of us do-at least, Dem Politicians don't, and when they get caught, they don't face the penalties that people NOT of the 'Elite' face, including destructive government-levied interest, jail time, garnishement, etc.
One can hardly expect such people to be able to balance expenditures vs. income on ANY scale.
22 - Cannonshop
#14 Ruvy, lay off-he thinks he's 'contrarian' because, like many on the left, he presumes a little time in the service is an automatic dunk into becoming some kind of conservative. (Ask Smedley Butler about that-wait, ya can't, he died a long time ago-read his book instead, it's called "War is a Racket", or just take the shining example of conservative that is John Murtha...) Glenn's actually incredibly predictable-if a Democrat likes it, he likes it, if a Dem denounces it, he denounces it. but like the theft of the term "Progressive", in his case "Contrarian" doesn't mean what he thinks it means...
23 - Ruvy
Cannonshop,
I know about Smedley Butler. Many of my own views on American interventionism - which Glenn tends to support when it bullies us and opposes when it doesn't - I got originally from reading the works of Smedley Butler decades ago.
My suggestion to Glenn is based not on the facts or the allegations in Dave's article, but in Glenn's insistence, no matter what the issue is, of finding the reason to support a white élitist who believes in anything but democracy, and who has extended the powers of the state over American citizens, extending the fascism introduced by George Bush in Sept. 2008.
Go check it out, Cannonshop. When it comes to confronting tyrants in Persia and the existential threat they are to Europe and Israel, Nobama wants to go soft - and Glenn is right there behind him, cheering like a pom-pom girl. When Nobama bullies us and interferes in our domestic policies, Glenn is there, cheering like a pom-pom girl jumping up and down and getting her panties wet, shouting GO PEACE! GO PALESTINE!
As to this article, Obama's budget, whatever its actual numbers are, pushes your country further into the filthy slime of indebtedness, a slime that will choke you for generations. And here is Glenn to defend it as best he can.
Finally, I raise to you something that will be controversial. Adolf Hitler was a Jew-hater, and I hope that G-d has made a special hell for this bastard, and his minions, to suffer for eternity for the evil they have done to my people. No matter how much the behavior of Jews in Eastern Europe brought the hand of severe judgment upon them, the horrors the Nazis murderers perpetrated were inhuman, and pushed them outside the pale of humanity.
Having said that, there is another side to what Hitler did, which was not evil at all. He did what he could to restore the pride of the German people when they were at a pit of downtroddenness in 1933. He led Germany in producing itself out of the Depression, and was the only leader anywhere who succeeded in bringing his country out of its grip.
What did he do? He ignored his creditors and threatened them with death - and finally attempted to destroy them. He might have succeeded, but his megalomania deluded him and he lost it all trying to defeat the Russians.
You Americans have an option open to you to get yourselves out of debt. You can treat your creditors the same way Hitler did - like nuisances to be destroyed if they did not bend over backwards and swallow a terrible loss. You don't necessarily have to go to war, "but if the cause it is just...." You know the rest.
24 - Dave Nalle
Congratulations, Dave - everyone bought your figures without doing any homework to see if those figures are true.
Glenn, my figures are true. That you can provide different figures which apply to different subjects which are not directly related and certainly not contradictory does not make my figures any less correct.
According to this Excel table from the Office of Management and Budget, your claim that "All of this spending adds up to a total increase over last year's budget of 10%, the largest one-year increase in history and the largest percentage increase since the 1930s" is misleading. For instance, are you referring only to increases in discretionary spending? If so, then 10% is NOT a record at all.
Did I say the increase applied only to discretionary spending? This budget represents a 10% overall increase, which means that the increase in discretionary spending presumably considerably more than 10%, though I don't have the complete breakdown. And these are not "my" figures. They come from the news sources linked to in the article.
Furthermore, it was BUSH who approved across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009.
Which has zero relevance. This article is not about things which happened in the past, it's about the present. When Bush increased the budget I also objected. You can go back through my articles and find several instances.
President Obama, OTOH, has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975.
Well great. But at a time of recession and enormous debt he should be cutting expenses, not increasing them.
You are also not taking into account the FACT that stimulus packages and/or increased taxes are precisely what American presidents since 1900 - INCLUDING Reagan (who raised corporate taxes) and Bush 41 ("Read my lips - no new taxes") - used to pull the economy out of recession.
Because it is not a fact, it is an opinion. You ought to learn the difference. Enormous deficit spending prolongs recession rather than ending it. And the spending Obama has engaged in has not been directed at economic stimulus, regardless of the name attached to the bills, it has been used primarily to pay off special interests and bail out irresponsible companies which should have been allowed to go bankrupt.
The economic mess that was handed to Obama last January was worsened by the Iraq war (which you supported)...but at least Bush didn't expand the 'War on Terrorism' to other countries (as you suggested he should do).
Which again, has nothing to do with this budget, which doesn't even include the appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan. You also seem to be somewhat confused about my support for expansion of the War on Terror.
But I suppose that sticking to provable fact and learning the lessons of history is something relegated to those oh-so-treasonous Democrats.
Glenn, if you call this sticking to provable facts then you're just as mendacious as the rest of your party. You can't just pick random irrelevant facts and throw them out and claim that they negate what's in my article. They don't. Just being facts doesn't make them relevant.
Dave
25 - Dave Nalle
Were Nalle, Miller, etc., vocal when Bush was sending $6trillion direct to the bottom line as debt and depreciating the dollar by 40%? I thought not.
Actually, John, I repeatedly criticized Bush's budgets in considerably more detail and at greater length than I do here.
For example, here's my critique of the 2007 domestic budget, which Bush vetoed. And here's another one which has a remarkably similar title to this article. And here's another article which critiques the 2006 budget at length. And those are just a few before I got tired of going through my 700+ past articles.
So, try to pull your head out of your partisan assumptions before you make accusations.
Dave