Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

DEBT: We’d still be hurting even if supercommittee succeeded

Letter by Hayden Nelson, Edgewood on Nov. 25, 2011 at 11:48 am with 7 Comments »
November 25, 2011 11:48 am

Your editorial of 11-23 contains an error that cries out for correction. You say the congressional supercommittee was tasked to find a way to “reduce the U.S. government’s debt – which just exceeded $15 trillion – by $1.2 trillion.”

In truth, its goal was to reduce the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. This is a “paltry” $120 billion per year, less than 10 percent of the annual deficits we are currently running, and the members could not bring themselves to accomplish even that.

Had the supercommittee succeeded, we would still have been on track to add another $10 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. This is the greater issue that your readers should be made aware of.

Leave a comment Comments → 7
  1. The Dems never wanted the “Super” Committee to have any effect, if they had, they would have appointed someone other than Patty Murray to lead it. Also, if the Committee could not come up with a solution, the Dems knew that the majority of the increase reductions (there are really no cuts) would come from the military rather than from the nanny state, and that is exactly what they wanted. They also know that the Republican leadership would cough up a few tax increases, so it was a win-win situation for them. We are still spending 40% more than our current tax load would warrent, and the Dems want to make that even worse.

  2. The temporary 4th branch of govt. was a failure-designed side show.
    It was event oriented….not process oriented.
    It was designed to show its own futility, thus enabling the prearranged default “solution”.

    Why am I not suspicious of a 9% reduction of today’s deficit that would take 10 years to “accomplish”, as if spending and interest debt would be miraculously put on hold, also for 10 years.

    In 10 years, most of these “side-show-scoundrels” would be retired or become lateral transfer lobbyists, hoping that the blame for their collective ineptitude falls on anyone else but themselves…but who would remember?

  3. I looked up “The Taxpayer Protection Pledge” this morning. The members of Congress who signed this pledge have stated they will:

    ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
    TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credit, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

    This concept has put the signers into a corner. How can government operate with such a limitation. It puts worthy expenditures at odds with each other. I could guarantee, if the economy turned around and money flowed into the coffers, the signers would fall over each other to reduce rates further rather than reduce the outstanding national debt.

    Until the deficit spending issue is resolved, I would like to see Congress at least impose a surcharge for the costs of national security, i.e., the costs of the war of terrorism and the estimated costs of taking care of the casualties of the current post 2001 wars. Is that too much to ask for “shared sacrifice?” Some share with their lives and limbs, while the rest of society complains about paying taxes.

  4. A proposal from Sen Tomey was placed before the Super Committee that would have reaised significant revenue for the coffers. It was the elimination of quite a few tax deductions and a slight restructure of the tax code to reduce or eliminate so called ‘tax loopholes’

    Pledge or not, a serious proposal was made but unfortunately the Dems said no… and they didn’t sign any pledge.

  5. sandblower says:

    Teh fact remains, as proved in prior posts, that the republicans scuttled the agreememt possibility by refusing to allow the very top income folks to have a modestly higher tax rate apply to them. That sort of nonsense and more is what you will get if you vote for republicans next November.

  6. Any agreement to tax anyone at any rate will still leave a significant gap between revenue and spending. We have and have always had a spending problem.

    To continue to support the spending nonsense is more of what you will get if you vote for a Democrat next November.

  7. There are no cuts, per se. These reductions are a gradual reduction in the amount of increases over time. The military’s budget will continue to go up, not down, over the next ten years, it just won’t go up as fast as it would have. I think its a good thing to have the various departments of federal government re-examine how they intend to increase their budgets over the next ten years – that’s a lot easier to develop strategy for compared to being asked to do actual cuts in a short time frame.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0