In FY 2011, we are running a $1.425 trillion deficit. This single year of spending will take our public debt from 62.1% of GDP up to 69.1% of GDP. Now, in our daily life, whenever we run up a debt the first thing we ask is: How long will it take me to pay this off?
So, how long will it take to pay off the debt we're adding just this year? Or, a slightly easier task: how long will it take to get the debt/GDP ratio back to what it was only 6 months ago?
Please understand that we're talking about money we're burning right now. We're halfway through the fiscal year, so we're right in the middle of running up this tab that we're going to have to pay off. And the Dems won't let us slow our spending to any significant degree.
So, how long? Let's point out right away that the White House budget never pays a penny of the 2011 debt back. In fact, the public debt keeps climbing and climbing, reaching 87% of GDP by 2021. So only the two budget reform plans are even trying to pay that money back. And just how fast are they hoping to do that?...The gray line is where we were at the end of September 2010 ==> that's our target. The blue line is the Obama administration's baseline budget. As you can see, it sails off into the stratosphere. This is the budget plan the Democrats are defending.
The teal line and red line are the Deficit Commission and Ryan's plan, respectively. The teal line makes it back to the gray line by the end of 2022. Ryan's plan? Well, you'll have to wait another 10 years...
...This is what the President and his crackerjack economic team have wrought. A one-year deficit that is so large that it can only be paid back if everything goes exactly right. And if everything goes exactly right, we're still looking at decades before we can get back to the debt level we had only 6 months ago.
As Jim DeMint warned in yesterday's Examiner, we had better start cutting now and cutting deep. Because the country is flat broke.
It should ... be the policy of the entire Republican conference that we will not vote to increase the debt ceiling without first passing this balanced budget amendment.
If we are to save this precious Republic -- this fragile vessel of our ancestors' blood, sweat and tears -- it is time to sacrifice. Starting with the federal bureaucracy.
3 comments:
Yeah, the ugly Democrats will again lie to the American Public about a sane Republican effort to help them, just like when GW bravely tried to reform Social Security.
Yet, I sense in "Geoff's" effort and others in our own arena, who seem to already be jumping in a manner which 'poo poos' Republican Ryan's concept.
It is as if the reactionary fashion of a few on our side who sit on the sidelines and proclaim themselves the 'ultra conservative' really haven't studied some of the concepts and the totality of effort.
I sense another fashionable debasing of "not enough" coming, without a real use of facts and reason. You know, like when some foolishly cried about Pork spending after 2004, when the Bush Administration was focused on the big fish of Social Security.
But even the fashionable can recognize (Mr. Beck and others who glow in the warm light of equating the two Parties), this Ryan offering is another big dose of reality - the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are vastly different.
Ryan is not Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Clinton, Obama, Boxer, etc.
Those who boldly called the two Parties the same, and those who believed it, are not to be trusted. They either are unethical 'cons', or simply are not too bright. And those who were crying about "establishment Rovian cabals" should even be more embarrassed.
Fashion is an amazing thing, and will get even the most well intentioned - soundest Folks embrace sincere folly, and lead us all astray. Delaware is just one ugly example of many.
Yet, I sense in "Geoff's" effort and others in our own arena, who seem to already be jumping in a manner which 'poo poos' Republican Ryan's concept.
You're reading something into the post that's not there. At all. In fact, the title of the post says "Ryan's Plan: Necessary But Not Sufficient," meaning that we absolutely need a plan like Ryan's, but that it won't get us out of the hole we're in for decades.
The point being: who made that hole so deep in the first place? And how can the Dems in good conscience oppose budget reform?
I'm confused, why are we cheering about more poor people without health care coverage? Won't that mean I have to see more of them at the emergency room?
Post a Comment