Breaking the national debt barrier

A few days ago, the Washington Post gravely informed us that “…federal debt is set to exceed the size of the entire U.S. economy this year for only the second time since the end of World War II.”  What wasn’t said (but could be gleaned from the report’s graphic) was that debt was projected to remain above 100 percent of gross domestic product (gdp) every year from now until 2031, the end of the Congressional Budget Office’s (cbo) projection horizon.

It is also disturbing that cbo based the analysis the Post used as their source on current policy; that is, without including the additional $2 trillion that the leftist current administration is ramming through Congress under procedures that evade the proper examination and debate such a radical scheme should be subject to.  The President has spoken soothingly but has shed his sheep’s clothing to bring the wolf to the Treasury door.

The first thing the administration should do is get the monies already legislated to their intended recipients.  For example, there are $50 billion left earmarked for subsidizing state and local governments.  Just write a $1 billion check to every State; that would get even the Californians and New Yorkers to shut up for a minute and give Congress the chance to more carefully consider a plan that involves throwing another $350 billion into that rathole.

Under his administration’s current proposal, “Biden wants to send $350 billion to state, local and territorial governments to keep their frontline workers employed, distribute the vaccine, increase testing, reopen schools and maintain vital services.”  That all sounds peachy, but it’s money we don’t have in the Federal piggybank and is the State’s responsibility to raise for themselves.  So let’s see which of the wish list should really get Federal aid and put our borrowed money there.

Of the programs listed, the Federal government has done the most damage in the vaccine distribution crisis:  Slow recognition of the scope of the pandemic, an over-complicated test kit that failed and left us data poor for longer than could ever be excused, and another over-complicated planning framework for administering the inoculations.  Thus, we should be glad to help out with funding to distribute the vaccine.

As to the rest of the list, paying their employees clearly is the specific jurisdiction’s responsibility.  Increased testing has already gone past it’s use-by date.  Reopening schools is very much a local responsibility and the Federal government should try not to make things more difficult than it already has;  let’s see if the Department of Health and Human Services can issue meaningful guidance on something.  I’m not sure which “vital services” are covered in the proposal, but the most vital has already been covered under “distribute the vaccine.”

Prior to the current situation, the national debt barrier was only broken once; from 1945 through 1947, debt-to-gdp ratios exceeded 100 percent.  Today we are looking at 10 years of exceeding the debt barrier and it often seems like we are no closer to defeating this enemy than we were to defeating the Axis powers when the Marines landed on Guadalcanal in the summer of 1942. 

Just looking at numbers

 After all the raving nonsense about the Senate being an undemocratic structure, how are the lefties explaining why the Senate was more anti-Trump (57% to 43%) than the popular [genuflect] vote (52% to 48%)?  It is also interesting that the electoral college, another institution scourged as anti-majoritarian, also went 57/43 for the current ruling party that had been heretofore wielding the whips.

How much does it cost to lift one person out of poverty?

 

If you use more than doubling the minimum wage as the tool, about $760,000.  CBO estimated the Raise the Wage proposal would lead to a rise in business labor cost of $509 billion for those kept on payrolls and a decline in labor income of $175 billion among the 1.7 million that lose their jobs.  Thus, jacking the minimum wage to $15 per hour imposes a total cost of $684 billion on low-paying employers and low-wage workers.  This would lift 900,000 people out of poverty at a cost of $760,000 a head.

So, let’s be glad that the relief package seems to be going forward without this bomb nestled in its details.  Similarly, we should not move forward under "reconciliation" procedures on the extensive reform of the welfare system proposed by Senator Romney.  Minimum wage and welfare reform are topics that must be given the full, in-depth policy analysis and program design that can only be accomplished, however clumsily and with however much infuriating partisan grandstanding, by the regular legislative process. Give them both the whole nine yards—expert commissions, committee hearings, high-level negotiations with OMB and other executive branch players and so on and so on.  Try not to screw up.

Whither Republicans?

 Shorn of almost all Federal-level power, the Republican Party may be on the verge of splitting more completely than the uranium atoms that would provide a check on the need for fossil fuels, if only the leftist wing of the new would-be suzerains would allow it.  But I divert myself.  The serious issue is whether or not the Republican Party can stay together, and even if that were true, should it stay together.

I have already seen reports of a MAGA party slinking together among the not-yet-cooled carcasses and putrid souls of the Trumpist wing of the GOP.  Among the fraud fervents, QAnon tin-foil-helmets, and other intellectual vacuums that provide the official cover for this secession are the chair of the Arizona Republicans and a newly elected representative from Georgia who is so ignorant the House of Representatives noticed. 

It is also true, unfortunately, that a substantial number of rank-and-file Republicans would seem to be easy marks for this gang of real state scammers, ambulance chasers, and carpetbaggers.  According to data collected by the Washington-based Pew Research Center (a self-described “nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world”) in interviews conducted January 8—12, two-thirds of respondents that were Republican or leaned Republican reported that Trump had either definitely or probably won the election. 

Somewhat imprecisely, that means about 47.5 million “Republican” voters have turned their backs on my Republican party to wallow in self-abusive political fantasy.  The question is, can the roughly 30 million of us that are living in a reality-based universe retain the Republican brand or must we create a new party?  Can 30 million sane Republicans hold off—no, actually reverse—the hostile takeover of the party by people who believe, inter alia, that brush fires are caused by ray guns, Comet Pizza serves human flesh to a cabal of pedophiles, and elections are only fair if they win.

Unfortunately, politics is an uncompromising numbers game even at the intra-party level.  Republicans are outnumbered one-and-a-half to one within our own party.  Even more unfortunately, according to people with extensive senior experience at the operation of political parties it would take tens of millions of dollars to establish a new party—and that party would do little other than split the center right vote and thus assure a prolonged ascendency of the left wing ideologues rising within the Biden administration.  

Perhaps it our duty to first make the party leadership now gifted to the authoritarian populists (nee Trumpists, nee fascists) unlucrative.  That is, do not contribute money, time, or talent to any other than individuals that align closely with your sense of what it is to be a center-right Republican.  For me, that means candidates espousing a small, competent, humane, and frugal government dedicated to defending the rights and obligations of its people.  Second, provide a loyal opposition to the leftward drift of our national government.   Remember, these people are only dumb and ill-informed, not seditious, treasonous, or un-American.

For myself, I hope there will be a long interval between this screed and the next time I am moved to address either intra-party or partisan political issues and that I’ll be able to focus on policy issues and actual governance. Let's hope that events don't force me to delete the first H in the title.