Posts tagged Deficit

Better, But Not Good Enough

Editor’s Note: Reed Davis joins Log­a­rchism as a reg­u­lar con­trib­u­tor with this arti­cle. Reed became inter­ested in U.S. bud­get and eco­nomic mat­ters back in 1992, the first time that he remem­bers the debt becom­ing a major issue in a pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. On that sub­ject, he main­tains a blog on the US bud­get, and a com­pan­ion web­site.

The Bat­tle of the Bud­get con­tin­ues to rage in Wash­ing­ton, DC. How bad are things, really? How hard would it be for us to bal­ance the budget?

The U.S. Bud­get for fis­cal year 2012 was released on Feb­ru­ary 14, 2011. As in prior years, it included the Ana­lyt­i­cal Per­spec­tives which con­tains a sec­tion on the long-​​run bud­get out­look. I’ve fol­lowed these long-​​run out­looks since at least the 2001 Bud­get and I’ve been impressed that all have openly pro­jected increas­ing pres­sures on the bud­get at the end of the long-​​run (typ­i­cally 75-​​year) win­dow. Still, there was a large improve­ment in the bud­get out­look in this year’s edi­tion. Let’s look at the rea­sons for that improve­ment, and what it means for the cur­rent long-​​run bud­get outlook.


Republicans Favor Deficit Increases

Orrin Hatch US Senator

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-​​UT) (Image via Wikipedia)

The Repub­li­cans in Con­gress con­tinue to clamor for a deficit increase of a quarter-​​trillion dol­lars in 2011, despite promises of more fis­cal responsibility.

Regard­ing the Repub­li­can plans, Sen­a­tor John Kerry (D-​​MA) told CNN today “I hope Amer­i­cans will under­stand how craven and empty and hol­low and con­tra­dic­tory the Repub­li­can posi­tion is.” Sen­a­tor Orrin Hatch (R-​​UT), when asked if Repub­li­cans can cut the deficit and show fis­cal respon­si­bil­ity, responded “I don’t think we can.”

You Solve the Deficit

US National Debt, 6 July 2006

Image by chrisjohn­beck­ett via Flickr

The Sun­day New York Times has a fea­ture in their Week in Review sec­tion called “You Fix the Bud­get”.

I’ve worked out a solu­tion, at least given the para­me­ters in the arti­cle. I know that some of you will attack this exer­cise, say­ing the basic premise is flawed, but I feel that’s just a diver­sion. Roll up your sleeves and get to work.

I’d be inter­ested in see­ing what other Log­a­rchism guests come up with as a pro­posed solu­tion. Maybe some­one will vol­un­teer to com­pile our sug­ges­tions in some way and see what areas of agree­ment (and dis­agree­ment) we have.

Here’s my solution.

Go to Top