This comment is largely irrelevant. Please address your comments to the specific points I have made in my posting.

The appropriate time to control spending is when the budget is being prepared, not when the debt ceiling is being raised. Refusal to raise it tells our creditors: "we will not pay you what we already owe you." That is why - when the Republicans last tried to refuse to raise the debt ceiling - our credit rating was lowered and the then-improving job situation was halted.

There is no reasonable reason why we even need to approve (or disapprove) a debt ceiling. It is a totally artificial phenomenon that no other country undergoes. We should just pay our bills.

There would be no problem paying our bills - and the debt would go down - if the right wing didn't completely control the Republican Party, preventing it from placing the country's intersts first. Congressmen who place their oath to Grover Norquist ahead of their oath to defend the Constitution should be thrown out of Congress.

If the debt ceiling is controlled ONLY by the President, there will be NO controls on borrowing or spending. Unchecked borrowing makes no sense in any economy. Much like our own cost centers, perhaps we shouldn't have budgets that include the need for additional borrowing that our children and grandchildren will be saddled with. The debt ceiling is a deal breaker.

Mr. Chauls wrongly asserts that the Clinton era tax rates "left a surplus", they did not. The total Federal debt rose every single year of the Clinton administration. The borrowings by the Federal Government came from the Social Security trust funds, during a period when the dot com bubble created larger tax payments to social security because of low unemployment and the baby boom demographic had not yet reached retirement age. So it was job growth and higher social security tax revenues, not federal income tax rates that funded expanding federal spending during the Clinton administration. Federal Government borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund will still have to be repaid, from future Federal Income Taxes, the one's your children and grandchildren will be paying, in addition to the Social Securitiy taxes they will still have to pay.

Mr. Chauls, also ignores the responsibilities of the States versus the Federal Government under the Constitution for addressing the various "needs" he outlined above. The bottom line is that Federal Spending is the problem and the Progressive's progressive erosion of Constituional limitations on the Federal Government.

Mike - could you point me toward some reading on this? I've seen a lot of articles mirroring Mr. Chauls' assertion and have taken them at face value. I'd like to read up on both sides and see where the disconnect is between them.

I'm generally pro-tax (or rather, pro-services, seeing taxes as a valid way to pay for them), but do feel that we need to both tax wisely and spend wisely, so it would be helpful to me to get a better grasp of the historical numbers and details behind them.

As for State vs Federal ... all I can say here is that we're in different places on that. I'd be happy to have a longer, deeper discussion about it, but I don't think online written comments could possibly do it justice.

Rob F.
Here are some links that show the gross federal debt by year.
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/.../hist07z1.xls
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/FYGFD.txt
Here is one discussing why social security checks were in danger of not being sent in late summer 2011 because of the debt ceiling limits. http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/07/13/what-happened-to-the-2-6-trillion-social-security-trust-fund/

Issues of Federalism, Consitutional limits on the Federal Government, the State's proper role as protector of individual liberty from an all powerful central national government, are topics for another day.

Mike - this one: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/.../hist07z1.x came through with the ellipses embedded, so it's not a valid URL. Can you grab the full URL and re-post? Thanks!

Rob,
Try googling "Gross national debt by year." There should be a listing for "Table 7.1 - Federal Debt at - The White House." By clicking on this listing you will get an excel file showing the gross national debt, the protion held by federal institutions (social security trust funds mainly) and the portion held in the private sector.

Got it - http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist07z1.xls

Thanks!

I've had a look at the numbers Mike pointed me at, and I'm not exactly sure what to make of them.

It's true that under Clinton, the Gross Federal Debt rose every year ($4T at the end of 1992 to $5.6T at the end of 2000), but if you graph that and compare it to the previous 10 years, it's a slower rate of growth. And if you look at the numbers as a percentage of GDP, they start at 64.1% at the end of 1992, peak around 1996 at 67.1% and drop to 57.3%, at the end of 2000.

If you look at the same numbers under the Bush presidency, there's a sharper growth in the gross numbers ($5.6T at the end of 2000 to $9.9T at the end of 2008) AND the percentage of GDP (57.3% to 69.7%). So by the end of the Bush presidency, the gross debt was more than double what it was at the start of the Clinton presidency, and percentage of GDP was 5 points higher.

Looking at Obama's first term, the numbers are, of course, even worse.

But if we look back in time to the 40's, 50's, and 60's (which Mr. Chauls cites as times of booming economy, the gross debt is extremely low, and the debt expressed as a percentage of GDP peaks at 110% in 1947 (immediately following World War 2) and steadily drops to 38.6% in 1969.

Filling in the gap (the 70's and 80's), the gross numbers rise slowly in the 70's while the percentage bounces around but stays roughly in the same range, and then in the 80's they both start to rise steadily, up to the patterns I described above under Clinton.

more to come ...

I don't know what's more important - the raw numbers, the percentage, or some of the other numbers in this spreadsheet. I don't think the raw numbers by themselves tell the whole story over time due to inflation, so I'm more inclined to look at the percentage of GDP. But is that enough?

Certainly, if I look at that percentage, the period Mr. Chauls cites seems like a good period to examine, as the numbers were steadily dropping. And it seems like Clinton may have been doing something right because he reversed a rise in this number.

But again, is this percentage a good indicator?

Whether it is or not, I can't say I'm happy with the way the raw numbers have been trending under Obama *or* Bush.

Don,

Try reading these messages again... please read them more closely. Meanwhile, excellent news today - Lisa Jackson resigns from the EPA. No doubt to be replaced by another zealot... but a brief respite from unreasoned regulation and spending is good.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Everyone should be welcome at the table for progress to be made. Exclusionary politics represents a select few and typically solves nothing.

Don,

No need for name calling and wild accusations, just because your Patch column did not resonate.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Don,
Please explain how the "Tea Party Craizies in Congress" are attempting to destroy the American economy. What positions are they taking that leads to the destruction of the American economy? Please explain how you come to your conclusion.

Increasing effective tax rates does not stimulate economic expansion. Increasing effective income tax rates reduces levels of household discretionary income. Spending of household discretionary income creates demand for goods and services beyond basic household necessities, creating an environment for business creation to service this demand. Without discretionary household income, the only way to create "discretionary" household spending is with excessive increases in household debt. We've seen the results of a household debt bubble.

You seem to be saying that the American economy is being destroyed because Federal tax revenue is too low, and the Federal government is borrowing too much. But isn't this a simple admission that Federal spending is too high? Isn't it exccessive Federal spending that is negatively impacting the economy causing both inflationary Federal Reserve actions and reductions in household discretionary income from pressure to increase effective income tax rates?

It seems to me that the extremists on both sides have it wrong. In my experience, there is almost never a situation involving two diametrically opposed ideas or sets of tools or approaches exist in which one of those extremes is entirely right and the other is wrong. The answer *always* lies in finding the sweet spot, and anyone who completely eliminates one set of tools is wrong.

In this case, on one side, we have the Norquist followers, with the Tea Party being the most extreme of the extreme. They have eliminated the tool called "raising taxes".

On the other side, we have extreme Democrats (we can call them tax-and-spend liberals if that makes it easier to refer to them). They have eliminated the tool called "spending cuts".

Guess what, folks? They're both wrong. To get out of this mess, we are going to have to raise taxes somewhere, and we are going to have to cut spending somewhere. It is irresponsible of the Tea Party and other Norquist followers to refuse to consider any tax increases (I believe this is what Mr. Chauls is referring to), and it is irresponsible of the tax-and-spend liberals to refuse to consider any spending cuts.

The big question we have to answer is this: where is the sweet spot? To answer that, we, and Congress, have to consider many factors: historical indicators, the role of government, and a sense of what is "right".

Running out of space, so I will continue this in my next comment ...

I don't know enough about historical factors to comment on them. However, when I look at the other factors, I come to the following conclusions.

First, there is a lot of wasteful spending in government. $40,000 portraits are an excellent example. Get rid of them. Find other obvious waste, and get rid of it. Go after things that anyone with any common sense would consider waste, and dump it.

Next, remember that the Constitution was created, in part, to establish Justice and promote the general Welfare. Therefore we need to take into account Justice (which includes fairness and equity) and the welfare of the people.

Seems to me that programs like Social Security and Medicare fall into that. But there are other programs that don't, and they should be examined for cuts.

The way I see it, so does having the wealthy pay higher tax rates. Consider the opposite: suppose everyone paid 20% of their income in taxes. 20% of $40,000 could mean the difference between eating healthily for the year and eating poorly. 20% of $450,000 could mean the difference between going on an around-the-world vacation for five or skipping it. And 20% of $20,000,000 could mean the difference between buying a new Lear Jet or not.

Yes, the rich deserve to spend what they have. But reasonably higher tax rates don't really affect that, and are Just.

Everyone needs to step back from the extremes and use common sense, Justice, and the general Welfare to find the sweet spot.

That is an absurd claim, Don. I don't know who or what you are watching or listening to but I can assure you that the Republicans I know are far more liberal minded than you suggest. As a matter of fact, there is very little difference between the Rs I know and the Ds I know. MOST of these have some dissatisfaction with their parties and have moved to a U in the past few years.

Siobhan, I think what Don is saying (Don, correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Republicans in Congress (and perhaps, outside of Massachusetts?) have become more and more extreme, and I have to say I agree with him. There's an interesting visualization that I believe backs up this claim here: http://www.xkcd.com/1127/ - it's a bit touch to follow, but the author describes his methodology, and there's a lot of discussion about the methodology and its vaildity in an associated forum here: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=96207

I do think that by and large, the Republicans I know here in Massachusetts are more liberal minded (to use your words) than the extremists who seem (to me) to be controlling their party in Congress. But talking to Republican relatives and old schoolmates in other states as nearby as New York and as far off as New Mexico is a different experience. It is this base that I believe is driving the Republican party away from its past values and ability to compromise.

Yes Rob F... I see your point however, the classifications and generalizations of groups of people is exactly what prevents a collective agreement - locally as well. Pointing fingers and making declarative statements indicating one party is reasonable while the other moves to the extreme is neither truthful nor helpful. There are pockets of the country that certainly have their extremes but to suggest that there is no extreme on the dem side is ludicrous.
I am suggesting that this type dialogue has to change and the local grass roots level is the perfect starting point.
"Reasonable" should be practiced by the blogger.

Don,

Unfortunately, there are extremists on both sides. As I said in my response to Siobhan, I believe the extremists on the right are driving the Republicans' agenda far more than the extremists on the left are driving the Democrats'. And so I think you're pretty much correct in that if you look at where the parties/sides are right now, my reasonable center is closer to the Democrats' position.

But even moderates can take extreme positions, and that can hurt compromise. For example, coming into a negotiation with absolutes such as "we won't touch Social Security or Medicare AT ALL" is as irresponsible as coming in saying "we won't allow any tax increases AT ALL". It's like two kids on the playground arguing over what to play with:

Johnny: "I don't really like playing on the swings very much. I categorically refuse to play any game that involves the swings"
Billy: "I absolutely positively hate playing on the slide. I categorically refuse to play any game that involves the slide"

Guess what, boys? The monkey bars are full, the ball field is muddy, and the basketball hoop is broken. It doesn't matter that Johnny is less extreme in his belief than Billy - they still aren't going to find anything to play on.

Excellent Rob F!

Providing for the General Welfare is not confusing and is debatable only when some faction wants to expand Federal power by claiming “its for the General Welfare.” As Chief Justice Marshall opined in Marbury v. Madison, “The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation.” I urge you to read his entire opinion for a more complete discussion of the powers granted and restraints imposed under the Constitution. It seems “stare decisis” only applies for SJC decisions that expand Federal Powers, not constrain them.

1/2

2 of 2
I agree discussion should occur about whether responsibility for education, healthcare and other issues should fall to the Federal government, State governments, or local governments. However, if we as a country desire to create Federal powers over these issues, then let’s have the debate, agree on a Constitutional amendment to grant this power to the Federal Government and seek its ratification. Let’s not create a de facto amendment by unchallenged Federal Legislation or unchallenged decisions by the Federal Supreme Court. Continuing with the Marbury decision: “The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it…if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.”

That's asking an awful lot... especially when there is so much of other people's money to be divided up and dealt with.

Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III

Don,
Your initial question should state, "Is the Federal Government really what the several States intended 225 years ago?" Regarding your list, I agree with item # 1, with the clarifitcaiton there should be no Federal law on these issues, absent a grant of power by the States, through the amendment process, to the Federal Government to make federal laws on these issues. Otherwise, these issues are properly reserved to the States or the People. The point is that with the steady and continued Federal usurpation of rights reserved to the States over the past 70-100 years (mostly in the past 50 years), we now have a Federal government behemoth that has created the fiscal probelms our country faces. Had the Federal government observed its Constitutional limitations, the individual State governments, local government structures, and private charity would have addressed the social issues of caring for the poor, sick, and our aged, with individual States emulating the best practices developed by other States. If Constitutional limits were observed, the wealthy, the K Street lobbyists and their clients, and powerful minority factions (not racial minority, but simply numerically minority) would not have the power over individuals now wielded through the Federal Government. They would instead have to lobby individual states, reducing the incident of majority or minority faction tyrannies. Centralization of power at the Federal level is the problem behind the fiscal crisis.