Smoke and Mirrors

August 3, 2011

The debt ceiling was finally raised this week.

The US will not default.

But how come I do not feel any better?

I kept listening to both sides…

Looking for that golden nugget

Will someone finally look at the whole picture

And come up with a meaningful plan?

Republicans want to cut cost

Are they really cutting cost?

All they are doing is cutting the amount of future increases

Not real cost

The democrats want to cut cost (future increases)

And raise taxes

Let’s make everyone pay their fair share

The bottom line there will be $1T dollars in cost reduction
in the

Next 10 years

Congress will form a special committee to recommend

$1.5T dollars of additional cost reductions

To be implemented over the next 10 years

All the while

The US deficit  is
projected to grow an

Additional $8 Trillion dollars

From $14.3 trillion dollars to $22.3 trillion dollars

Is this really cutting cost?

What steps are being taken to help…

Grow the economy….

Create jobs….

Restore confidence……

In America’s future?

We are currently borrowing 43 cents of every dollar we spend

At the current pace…

How long will this be

Sustainable?

The US cannot borrow its’ way out of this dilemna

We must devise a plan for the future

One that will rebuild our economy

Help put people to work

Promote stability

And insure prosperity for America’s future

Our forefathers had their disagreements…

But their goal was always for

The common good of the nation

They undertook projects

That they knew would not benefit them

But would provide for the future

What steps are we taking to insure a better future?

For our children and our grandchildren?

Have we allowed our political leaders to become

Complaisant

As reported by HuffingtonPost  by Sam Stein and Elise Foley

WASHINGTON — Congressional leaders and President Obama on Sunday night announced they’ve cut a deal to avert a historic U.S. default, saying they have assembled a framework that cuts some spending immediately and uses a “super Congress” to slash more in the future.

The deal calls for a first round of cuts that would total $917 billion over 10 years and allows the president to hike the debt cap — now at $14.3 trillion — by $900 billion, according to a presentation that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) made to his members. Democrats reported those first cuts at a figure closer to $1 trillion. It was unclear Sunday night why those two estimates varied.

The federal government could begin to default on its obligations on Aug. 2 if the measure is not passed.

The next round of $1.5 trillion in cuts would be decided by a committee of 12 lawmakers evenly divided between the two parties and two chambers. This so-called super Congress would have to present its cuts by Thanksgiving, and the rest of Congress could not amend or filibuster the recommendations.

But if the super Congress somehow failed to enact savings, the measure requires automatic cuts worth at least $1.2 trillion. Those cuts would be split equally between military and domestic programs. Social Security, Medicaid and programs for the poor would be spared, but Medicare providers — not beneficiaries — would take a hit.

White House officials confirmed that there would not be an extension of unemployment benefits as part of the final package. The administration had insisted that an extension be part of the grand bargain it was negotiating with Boehner. But when those discussions fell apart, so too did efforts to ensure that unemployment insurance was part of a final package. A senior administration aide added that the president would push for an extension in the months, if not weeks, ahead.

Some observers scored one victory for the president — the second round of cuts do not kick in until 2013, when the Bush-era tax cuts are set to expire. Having a fresh round of deficit reduction that is all cuts with no revenues could give the White House ammunition to end the tax cuts on wealthier Americans, as it failed to do last winter.

Though none of the leaders sounded pleased about the deal, they said they were relieved it may present a chance to avert default. President Obama seemed especially dissatisfied with the idea of the super committee, saying the leaders should have been able to accomplish all the cuts now.

“Is this the deal I would have preferred? No,” Obama said. “I believe that we could have made the tough choices required — on entitlement reform and tax reform — right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process.”

The two Senate party heads also expressed qualified support for the deal.

“Leaders from both parties have come together for the sake of our economy to reach a historic, bipartisan compromise that ends this dangerous standoff,” Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on the Senate floor Sunday night.

“At this point I think I can say with a high degree of confidence that there is now a framework to review that will ensure significant cuts in Washington spending,” said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

“We can assure the American people tonight that the United States of America will not for the first time in our history default on its obligations,” McConnell added.

In spite of the guarded optimism, all sides will face quite a sales job in getting enough lawmakers in the middle to accept a deal.

Liberals were extremely displeased with the final result of the talks, which began with Democrats saying there should be no strings attached to a debt limit increase that would enable the country pay its bills.

Then they insisted that if deficit reduction was going to be linked to the debt limit, then closing loopholes and raising taxes on the rich had to be part of the deal.

They lost completely on both counts, and House Republicans managed to pull the entire deal further and further to the right, even inserting a requirement into the agreement for a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus in the House had called emergency meetings for Monday as details of the plan started to leak. They seemed likely to oppose the deal.

One top House aide said his boss would vote against the measure, and the aide predicted Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would not be eager to whip her members to get on board.

“This is going to be close. I think in the end, the president and Nancy are going to have to twist arms, and I’m not sure how hard she’ll work to do that,” the aide said, noting that Pelosi still remembers the infamous TARP vote where she delivered 150 of her members but Boehner did not get 100 of his.

Many of Boehner’s freshman Tea Party members also are likely to find the proposal tough to swallow, since many wanted no hike in the borrowing limit to begin with. They also wanted the passage of a balanced budget amendment to be a prerequisite for increasing the debt ceiling.

Both sides can afford to lose members if 217 representatives can still back the plan.

Boehner’s talk to his 240 members Sunday night had the greatest note of triumph.

“Now listen, this isn’t the greatest deal in the world,” he said, according to remarks his office sent out. “But it shows how much we’ve changed the terms of the debate in this town.”

He also sounded a note of vindication.

“There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles. It’s all spending cuts. The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down,” Boehner crowed. “And as I vowed back in May — when everyone thought I was crazy for saying it — every dollar of debt-limit increase will be matched by more than a dollar of spending cuts.”

Notably, Pelosi was the only of the four congressional leaders not to pledge support for the plan.

“I look forward to reviewing the legislation with my Caucus to see what level of support we can provide,” she said in a statement.

Reported by Sam Stein for The Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — Sunday night’s much anticipated debt ceiling meeting between the president and congressional leadership managed to produce an outcome, just not the desirable one. Attendees did not find agreement on a package of cuts, revenues, or entitlement reforms. Instead, they settled on the decision to meet again and, perhaps after Monday’s meeting, again after that.

As the government approaches the August 2 date at which it will run out of cash, the need to hold meetings is the only thing both sides can agree on.

Sunday night proved no different, as lawmakers met in the Cabinet Room with no apparent budging from either end. According to multiple attendees, the discussion began with President Obama pressing, once more, for lawmakers to consider a “grand” bargain to end the debt ceiling debate, something that would combine $1 trillion in revenue raisers with $3 trillion in cuts, including reforms to Medicare and Medicaid and smaller tinkers to Social Security.

“The basic thrust of the meeting was the president making the case for why to do a big deal and putting it to everyone around the table: if not now, when? And if not the big deal, then what is the alternative, particularly given that it is the Republicans who have said we need to use this opportunity to do something serious about the deficit,” said a Democratic official briefed on the meeting. “The president is a bit frustrated too … He is out there. He is ready and willing to take political heat. He is already taking some heat.”

Less than 24 hours earlier, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had formally rejected the very offer that Obama was pressing for, insinuating that it was too heavy a political lift and that negotiators would be better served building on the $2.4 trillion deal that Vice President Joseph Biden had been crafting in a series of bipartisan meetings with congressional leaders. Obama’s pitch did little to chip away at that opposition. The speaker, according to several sources briefed on Sunday’s meeting, did not say much during it, deferring instead to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.). But a Boehner aide made it clear after the fact that his boss hadn’t exactly been won over.

“The speaker told the group that he believes a package based on the work of the Biden group is the most viable option at this time for moving forward,” said the aide. “The speaker restated the fundamental principles that must be met for any increase in the debt limit: spending cuts and reforms that are greater than the amount of the increase, restraints on future spending, and no tax hikes.”

And so it went for roughly 75 minutes, as the eight congressional attendees, along with the president and vice president, spoke at varying lengths about not just the economic logic of their respective plans but the political arithmetic behind them.

Cantor and Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the Senate minority whip, both insisted that a grand bargain did not have the votes needed to pass. “We should start talking about the Biden-type framework instead,” they added, according to a GOP source briefed on the meeting.

Biden, for his part, reminded the Republican attendees that the package they were now touting was one they had previously abandoned (both Cantor and Kyl walked away from the negotiating table when the talks turned to revenues). Besides that, he argued, it wasn’t really a package at all, but rather a list of goals with blanks requiring filling.

“The one really important point Biden made is that it is a bit of a fallacy to talk about the Biden framework as something that could just be taken off the shelf, because nothing was agreed to in those conversations and the vice president made it very clear that we weren’t going to [reach a deal] without revenues,” said the Democratic official briefed on the meeting.

If lawmakers wanted to go even smaller — say, take the $1 trillion in cuts that Biden and Republicans had pinpointed – they would have to convince the president first. Obama, according to a GOP aide, told attendees on Sunday that he would not sign a debt deal that didn’t go through 2013. He and Biden also made it clear that even the smaller packages would have to have a revenue component to earn their support.

For all the intractability, there were relatively few moments of tension on Sunday evening. According to those briefed on the exchanges, lawmakers took turns talking about their preferred approaches. There were some jabs thrown. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), according to a Hill aide, accused the Republican Party of falling far short of their rhetorical bluster when the topic came to deficit reduction. He pointed to the fiscal commission, the Gang of Six negotiations, the Biden deal and Boehner’s refusal to craft a grand compromise with Obama as instances in which Republicans simply left the table when it came time to make tough choices. “Every time we try to do something big on this, you walk away,” the aide paraphrased him as saying.

By and large, however, the conversation was, as one Democratic official acknowledged, “cordial.” And that may be where the problem lies. With ten days to go before the president wants a bill presented — so that it can go through the legislative process in time to pass by August 2 — the sides are still dealing in broad strokes. Additionally, there isn’t a clear sense of what type of package could garner the necessary support. The president will be hosting a news conference on Monday before he meets with congressional negotiators once more. He left the meeting on Sunday telling them to have their schedules cleared or flexible for the full week.

“The president ended the meeting by saying we will come back here tomorrow and that we should be prepared to be here every day,” recalled the Democratic official briefed on the meeting. “He said, I want people to come back here tomorrow with an answer to the question: If not this, what is your plan and how are you going to get 218 votes [in the House] for it?”

As reported in Huffington Post
WASHINGTON (AP/The Huffington Post) — Efforts to find a bipartisan agreement blending huge budget cuts with a must-pass measure to increase how much the government can borrow have entered a new phase after Republican negotiators pulled out of talks led by Vice President Joe Biden.

The exit of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor from the talks on Thursday means the most difficult decisions have been kicked upstairs to GOP House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and President Barack Obama. The Biden-led group had made solid progress in weeks of negotiations but was at an impasse over taxes.

Cantor, R-Va., said that the Republican-dominated House simply won’t support tax increases and that it’s time for Obama to weigh in directly because Biden and Democrats were insisting on tax increases. Democrats said it’s only fair to blend in additional revenues from closing tax breaks to balance trillions of dollars in spending cuts.

It had long been assumed that the Biden group would set the stage for more decisive talks involving Obama and Boehner. As a result, Cantor’s move was interpreted as trying to jump-start the talks rather than blow them up – a view shared by Cantor himself.

“The purpose here is to alter the dynamic,” Cantor said.

In fact, Cantor’s withdrawal came after Boehner had already made a trek to the White House – in a secret meeting Wednesday night that followed up on a golf outing over the weekend.

According to The Hill newspaper, Cantor’s walkout had been planned for weeks:

The timing of Cantor’s exit from the talks has been discussed for weeks, and senior House Republicans cast it as a natural progression for the negotiations.

For his part, Cantor didn’t inform Boehner of his decision to leave the talks until Thursday, shortly before the news broke, said a GOP official familiar with the situation. The official required anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

The White House sought to put a positive spin on developments.

“As all of us at the table said at the outset, the goal of these talks was to report our findings back to our respective leaders,” Biden said in a statement. “The next phase is in the hands of those leaders, who need to determine the scope of an agreement that can tackle the problem and attract bipartisan support. For now the talks are in abeyance as we await that guidance.”

The Senate’s Republican negotiator, Jon Kyl of Arizona, also exited the talks.

For his part, Cantor said the secretive Biden-led talks had “established a blueprint” for agreement on significant cuts in spending.

One of the byproducts of Cantor’s departure was to provide an opportunity for partisans on all sides to make statements at odds with the positions they may have to take to achieve a deal. Democrats insist that at least some new revenues are needed – both to soften spending cuts and to line up the Democratic votes needed to pass the measure.

“It will take Democratic votes to pass any debt-ceiling agreement,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. “As a result, certain things are going to have to be true. We cannot make cuts to Medicare benefits. We have to allow for revenues like wasteful subsidies for ethanol and oil companies. And we have to do something on jobs.”

“President Obama needs to decide between his goal of higher taxes or a bipartisan plan to address our deficit,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “He can’t have both.”

As for Democratic demands for new deficit-financed “jobs” initiatives, McConnell scoffed: “What planet are they on?”

Cantor said that plenty of progress has been made in identifying trillions of dollars in potential spending cuts to accompany legislation to raise the $14.3 trillion cap on the government’s ability to borrow money. Passage of the legislation this summer is necessary to meet the government’s obligations to holders of U.S. Treasurys. The alternative is a market-shaking, first-ever default on U.S. obligations.

Wall Street Journal June 17,2011

By JAMES
A. BAKER III

If the United States does not address its looming debt crisis, the cost of
servicing the national debt will spiral out of control. The annual interest
bill, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, will increase
four-fold to $916 billion by 2020. This year, we will spend 70% less on debt
payments than we do on defense. In nine short years, we are expected to spend 8%
more.

Washington so far has been unable or unwilling to make the tough choices
required to put us on the road toward fiscal sanity. And it is unlikely that a
grand bargain will emerge prior to the 2012 election. Nonetheless, our country
can still take three short-term steps to bolster confidence in the bond markets
and prevent a rise in interest rates that will damage our fragile recovery.

Step No. 1 is to raise the debt limit in a way that generates confidence in
the markets. That means including a restraint on spending.

To accomplish this, the debt limit should be increased by an amount
sufficient to service the U.S. debt for six months, provided that the proceeds
from the increase are used to service debt obligations. Doing this would
eliminate the argument that a U.S. default will end Western civilization as we
know it. And we should also increase the debt limit by an additional amount
sufficient to cover the federal government’s anticipated borrowing needs for the
next six months. But we must do so only if the administration and Congress agree
to a cap on total spending that will be enforced by sequestering spending from
specific programs or by cuts across the board—and only if, in addition,
agreed-upon amounts and types of projected spending are eliminated. Special care
here should be taken not to agree to waivers, exceptions or exemptions that
could be used to defeat the purpose of the cap, sequester or across-the-board
cuts.

We’ll have to repeat the process twice a year until a comprehensive budget
fix is reached. The caps should aim at achieving a historical ratio of spending
to GDP of 20.6%. The debt-limit increase should not exceed the six-month period,
because it is only when the debt limit has to be increased that Congress will be
forced to muster the political will to enact enforceable spending restraint.

Of course, the best way to permanently reduce spending would be to enact a
balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution requiring a supermajority in both
houses of Congress to run an annual deficit, raise tax rates, or increase the
debt ceiling. Unfortunately, the chances of enacting such a constitutional
amendment are slim.

Step No. 2 is to take a page from Ronald Reagan’s playbook in 1986 and
restructure our convoluted tax code by reducing loopholes and lowering marginal
rates. Business responded when the Reagan administration and a Democratic House
overhauled the tax system this way. It would respond again today if given the
chance. But, as in 1986, any changes in 2011 must be revenue-neutral so as to
avoid turning the discussions on tax reform into a heated debate over aggregate
levels of taxes and expenditures. Otherwise, with a divided government, the
effort will fail.

Step No. 3 is for Congress and the White House to fully embrace free trade.
With the dollar at low levels, consumers in other countries have an appetite for
products with a “Made in the USA” label. To encourage them, we should give more
than lip service to the currently pending free trade agreements with Colombia,
South Korea and Panama. The White House should stop stalling after two and a
half years of inaction and send them up to Congress for a vote.

In the long run, much more will be needed to correct America’s fiscal woes.
We must solve long-term funding shortfalls in entitlements such as Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security. And at some point we will have to start thinking
about ways to raise revenue. But as President Reagan taught us, the very best
way to do that is by increasing economic activity with pro-growth economic
policies—lower tax rates, less regulation and more free trade.

With the Federal Reserve ending its purchase of bonds later this month, the
Treasury must rely even more on China, Saudi Arabia, Japan and other countries
to invest in our securities. The cost of these borrowings will ultimately
increase if the U.S. is not seen to be dealing with its fiscal problems. We must
demonstrate to the American people as well as the world that our leaders are
doing so.

Mr. Baker was President Ronald Reagan’s secretary of the Treasury from
1985-88.

As reported in Huffington Post

By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON — Negotiators trying to tame the United States’ spiraling debt said on Thursday that they had tentatively agreed on a number of cuts and are now gearing up for tough trade-offs that could lead to trillions of dollars in savings.

“We’ve gone through a first, serious scrub of each of the categories that make up the total federal budget,” Vice President Joe Biden told reporters. “Now we’re getting down to the real hard stuff: I’ll trade you my bicycle for your golf clubs.”

Biden and top Democratic and Republican lawmakers aim to reduce the country’s stubborn budget deficits by $4 trillion over the next 10 years in order to give lawmakers the political cover to raise the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt ceiling to prevent a default.

The agreed-upon cuts will serve as bargaining chips in the coming weeks as the two sides tackle a stark divide over taxes and health benefits, participants said.

“Even stuff we agreed to that we may have refined today is all subject to be reopened if we don’t get agreement on some of the big issues. We’ve got a long way to go here,” said Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen.

Farm subsidies, federal employee pensions, student loans and the trillion-plus dollars that Congress spends each year on everything from defense to river dredging could come under the knife.

But Republicans have refused to consider increased taxes, while Democrats have resisted wholesale changes to health benefits for the poor and the elderly.

COMPROMISE ON TAXES, HEALTHCARE?

Compromise is not impossible in these areas. Democrats hope to boost tax revenues primarily by ending breaks and closing loopholes, rather than raising rates. Two recent Senate votes have given them heart as Republicans backed closing tax breaks for ethanol providers.

On healthcare, Democrats have blasted a Republican plan that would scale back the Medicare health program for future retirees. But they have proposed less dramatic changes that could still save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Both President Barack Obama and Republicans have proposed significant changes to the Medicaid health program for the poor. Obama has also said he would support limiting medical malpractice lawsuits — a longtime Republican priority.

“I think we really are covering every type of spending program there is,” Representative Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican, told reporters. “We are doing all that we have set out to do.”

The group is stepping up negotiations as it faces a self-imposed deadline of July 1, with longer and more frequent talks set for next week.

The Obama administration has warned that it will run out of money to pay the nation’s bills if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling by August 2 — a prospect that could push the country back into recession and upend financial markets across the globe.

Washington needs to show investors that it can rise above its dysfunctional reputation, Biden said.

“The single most important thing to do for the markets is convince them no, that’s not true, we can handle difficult decisions,” he said.

Republicans want at least $2 trillion in cuts, measured over 10 years, to go along with a similar increase in the debt ceiling to ensure Congress doesn’t have to revisit the politically toxic issue before the November 2012 elections.

The Biden group could claim another $2 billion in savings by mandating automatic cuts or tax increases if Congress doesn’t meet specified deficit targets in coming years.

Budget deficits in recent years have hovered at their highest level relative to the economy since World War Two. The deficit is projected to hit $1.4 trillion in the fiscal year that ends September 30.

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Eric Walsh)

WASHINGTON — Congressional negotiators held what were described as “productive” talks Tuesday afternoon in an effort to pass a spending measure that would cut tens of billions of dollars from the federal budget. But with just days remaining before the federal government runs out of money, there was only muted optimism that lawmakers would be able to avert a government shutdown.

The above paragraph was ripped from the headlines on Wednesday April 6th

What do you make of all this talk?

You can turn on any cable channel and the coverage is 24/7. The American press seems to be obsessed with the moment.

Japan??? ………That happened over a month ago

Libya…….That sound bite may last 30 seconds

Now we are faced with a Government shutdown!!!!….

Is it possible?

Will it happen?

I found myself being drawn to this topic. Numbers are constantly being discussed.

What are we really dealing with?

Can we just focus on making cuts to 12% of the budget and tackle the deficit issues?

What about the sacred cows!!!!!!

Defense….Social Security….Medicare…..Medicaid

Let’s look at some numbers:

On February 14, 2011, President Obama released his 2012 Federal Budget.

The report updated the projected 2011 deficit to be $1.645 trillion.

This is based on estimated revenues of $2.173 trillion and outlays of $3.818 trillion.

Observations

The federal deficit of $1.645 trillion is for 1 year (2011)

The federal deficit of $1.645 trillion is 75.7% of the $2.173 trillion total revenue the Government brought in last year.

The US Government is currently funding only 56.9% of their current expenses ($3.818 trillion) with the total revenue they received ($2.173 trillion).

The federal deficit of $1.645 trillion helps fund 43.1% of the $3.818 trillion in expenses.

You hear Congress arguing over whether to cut $30 billion or $40 billion in expenses.

That number may seems like a large amount, but what is it in the scheme of things?

Let’s take a quick look at where we are spending this money.

The federal budget in 2011 was projected at $3.83 trillion in total spending.

Below is a breakdown of the budgeted expenses for 2011. (This budget has never been passed, yet!!!)  

Obama’s new 2012 budget calls for reducing these cost by $12 billion dollars to $3.818 trillion from the proposed 2011 figure of $3.83 trillion.

You can now……. all play along….

Where do you want to take the $12 billion from?

$787.6 billion in pensions, $898 billion in health care expenditures, $140.9 billion for education, $928.5 billion in defense spending, $464.6 billion in welfare spending, $57.3 billion in protective services such as police, fire, law courts, $104.2 billion for transportation, $29 billion in general government expenses, $151.4 billion in other spending including basic research, and          $250.7 billion on interest payments.

Let’s not get too aggressive…..

What are our options?

 

How do we reduce cost and lower the deficit?

There is some talk of cutting all the expenses, 5%  across the board.

They’ll be no discrimination, everyone will take a hit.

That would reduce overall cost by $190.9 billion.

Guess what…..

the deficit would still be $1,454.1 trillion for this year.

Now what?

…………..I’m thinking…….I’m thinking

More factors to think about

 

The overall deficit is just under $15 trillion,

Our existing $1.645 trillion deficit makes up just under 11% of the overall deficit.

Recently, Robert Gates said the Pentagon has identified $178 billion in cuts for the five years from fiscal year 2012 to 2016. The Pentagon plans to reinvest about $100 billion of that into its own services, leaving the remainder for deficit reduction.

Hmmmmm!

Gates can identify $178 billion in cuts but wants to keep 57% of it?

This week, Portugal was looking to raise money by selling 6 month T -Bills for 5.117%.

Just 60 days ago the same T Bill was selling for 2.984%.

The US is currently selling T Bills for under 0.5%.

What do you think will happen if there is a Government shutdown?

There is the looming question of raising the debt ceiling.

How long before the world loses confidence in our ability to control cost?

Somehow I think we really took our eye off the ball.

Just this morning, experts were discussing the fact that the Government is expected to run with a deficit,

But……. $4 to $5 trillion is a more acceptable number.

How do we get from $15 trillion to $5 trillion?

Let’s try cutting the deficit by $1 trillion a year.

That means ………

In 10 years we can be within the acceptable numbers.

If we have already budgeted for a deficit of $1.645 trillion; to save $1 trillion this year, we would have to cut expenses $2.645 trillion dollars.

That means, we cut expenses from $3.818 trillion to $1.173 trillion.

We would only have to cut expenses by 70%!!!!

That doesn’t sound too promising!

How about we take 20 years to get the deficit from $15 trillion to $5 trillion?

Then we would only have to cut expenses 35%.

Do I hear 30 years?

Where am I going with all this fuzzy math?

I wish I knew!!!

No one seems to want to stand up and address any of these questions?

Ask anyone, we already feel we pay our fair share of taxes.

Can the American public be asked to pay more?

If you want to get reelected,

you better not be talking about raising taxes!

Cut our taxes but don’t dare cut our programs….

Is the US Government up for the challenge?

Will they be able to make the tough choices?

Or will the push the ball forward.

At HBS we pride ourselves on providing Smart Solutions for Smart Business

I am not sure where we would place this budget category?

I am just trying to make some sense of it.

Your comments are welcomed.

You may email george@hbsadvantage.com

Visit us on the web www.hutchinsonbusinesssolutions.com