So, yesterday I posted about a possible solution to the deficit and the debt. In those plans I accommodated those on the right who insist on a plan that includes no new revenues due to tax increases. Further, I accommodated those on the left who insist on a plan that doesn’t cut; in fact my plan GROWS government each and every single year.
As I ended my analysis I demonstrated a method by which both of those targets were met AND we backed away from the debt limit that we are struggling with today. The solution began to reduce the the deficit in year 1. And it balanced the budget in year 19. It’s the perfect trifecta.
But what if we can do better? What if we can reduce the amount of time in which we are free of the deficit?
I think we can:
The talk of the town is the debt limit. Raise it or not raise it; and what it would take TO raise it.
Reasonable people can agree on a couple of things:
- We are in debt and it’s getting worse.
- To balance the budget, there needs to be a combination of an increase in revenue and a decrease in spending.
I honestly feel that if you were to ask this question, hidden in such a way as to bypass the normal political partisanship, every single American would agree. If the checking account is overdrawn, a second job becomes something to consider and a review of the household spending becomes a priority.
But, how do we agree on such a combination when the discussion changes from the household budget to the federal budget? How can we get folks who demand that we raises taxes together with folks who demand we don’t? How do we get people who refuse to cut spending to shake hands with those who feel we HAVE to cut spending?
I propose that we do it by doing neither.