The Deluge

I am grateful to Jon and Miranda for posting during my brief absence. If I could just get the two of them to post occasionally on a regular basis, this blog might be interesting, at least occasionally. I won't thrill you with details of the trip, except for one. We were forced to detour around large stretches of I 29. We took US 71 north from St. Joseph Missouri and then I 80 West to North Omaha. As I approached the exit for I 29 North, I glanced left. I 29 South was under water as far as the eye could see. The sight was breathtaking, in more ways than one.

Here is another flood that is breathtaking. From the Washington Post:

The national debt will exceed the size of the entire U.S. economy by 2021 — and balloon to nearly 200 percent of GDP within 25 years — without dramatic cuts to federal health and retirement programs or steep tax increases, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday…

Over the long term, the CBO said, a projected explosion in government spending outside interest on the debt is "attributable entirely" to the ballooning cost of "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and (to a lesser extent) insurance subsidies" intended to help finance coverage for the uninsured under President Obama's new health-care law.

Unlike the waters covering I29 South, the national debt deluge is right in our path. There are no detours available. Everyone knows what the right policy is.

"If policymakers are to put the nation on a sustainable budgetary path, they will need to let revenues increase substantially as a percentage of GDP, decrease spending significantly from projected levels, or adopt some combination of those two approaches," the CBO report said.

Some "combination of the two approaches" is the only viable approach. Right now, Republicans won't hear of tax increases and Democrats respond to even the most modest entitlement reforms with ads showing Paul Ryan pushing granny over a cliff.

This is what Presidents are supposed to be for. This is the moment a chief executive can make history. It is his job to take charge, stand apart from Congress, and reconcile the irreconcilable. The President is supposed to lead.

Unfortunately, we know by now that this President couldn't exercise leadership over a group of cub scouts. He has no plan for bringing our national finances under control. His signature piece of legislation, which he promised would help control costs, has contributed to the problem. It is only "his" in the most nominal sense, since he took almost no leadership role in fashioning it. His party hasn't been interested in passing a budget for two years. He has made no attempt to bring it to the task. If Barack Obama is reelected next year, it is all but certain that the dire predictions of the CBO will come to pass.

If there is any hope, it is in the Republican field. Oddly enough, Mitt Romney is best positioned to take the leadership role. All he needs is a sudden blessing of courage. Like that's going to happen. Someone, Romney or someone else, might step forth and say: "we are going to have to row this damn boat on both sides". That will be tough in the primaries, but tough is what we need. I wish I could believe it is what we will get.

What was it Martin Heidegger said? "Only a God could save us now."

Comments

[Bob Ellis]

I lived in Omaha for 2 years, and have traveled that stretch of I-29 between Omaha and St. Joe countless times over the past 25 years. I couldn't disagree with you more about RINO Romney, but thanks for a remarkable look at that hard-hit area. It should serve as a reminder that the power of God's creativity is far beyond our ability to comprehend, and that while it can destroy us when we rebel, it can also save us when it seems there's no hope.

[larry kurtz]

The mainstem dams should go away.

[Jimi]

"He has no plan for bringing our national finances under control."

That's because he came into office with a plan to ensure that the national finances went out of control. It's kind hard to expect somebody to fix a problem if it is required to have the problem to achieve their agenda.

[larry kurtz]

Duh Mass: it fits you.

[A.I.]

"...modest entitlement reform"? The "granny over a cliff" ad referred to Ryan's plan. If turning medicare into a voucher program and doubling out-of-pocket costs for those who enter the program in 2022 as compared to what they would be if the program is left alone is modest, just what would qualify as radical.

Essentially you are saying the little people will hardly notice the extra burden as Ryan/Republicans slash medicare while channeling another $3 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy over a ten year period. This while Republican's accuse Democrats of class warfare.

[A.I.]

And by the way, the CBO also project if Congress does nothing, the budget will soon be balanced: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/chart-of-the-day-if-congress-does-nothing-the-deficit-will-disappear.php Maybe Obama should be doing what you claim he is: nothing.

[Ken Blanchard]

A.I.: Great! Lets do nothing. That is certainly the Democrats plan. Maybe someone should tell the CBO that this is what they are projecting.

[Ken Blanchard]

Bob: I was not endorsing Romney. I was only pointing out a fact about positioning.

[A.I.]

I note you don't dispute the accuracy of the charts linked to in my post KB. And if they are accurate, it would seem most of the fuss in congress boils down to one thing, alternatives to allowing Bush-era tax cuts to expire--not only for the wealthy, but for all income levels.

[Jimi]

A.I.

The charts are based on assumptions of overly optimistic growth in the economy based on a recovery that hasn't happend, and assumptions that the ACA will cost what Congress says it will cost, instead of the actual reality. The CBO can only base it's analysis on the assumtions provided to it by Congress.

The tax cuts arguement is a strawman, because even in a Bush economy the tax cuts don't even cover the interest on the debt. The top bracket would be contributing only $67.5 Billion/year more than they are now, and that is based the economy before the recession, it would be much less now. Tax increases are only going to do more damage at this point. We have a spending problem not a revenue problem.

If you get rid of the Bush Era Tax Cuts for all income levels, it will have a negative effect on the economy, which will decrease revenues to the government even more, plus the fact that the largest benefits of the tax cuts were the middle class, and I thought Demcorats were all about helping the "Little People?"