Debra Saunders is the only full time op-ed columnist at the SF Chron. She's generally very conservative and while I frequently differ with her, I give her high points for regularly coming out against draconian drug sentences. This piece deserves a high five:

The mortgage you didn't know you had
- Debra J. Saunders
Thursday, May 25, 2006

WASHINGTON politicians, especially on the GOP side, often complain about inheritance taxes. U.S. Comptroller General David M. Walker, however, thinks elected officials should be talking about "the birth burden," the $156,000 that represents each American's share of the $8 trillion federal debt, plus $35 trillion in unfunded spending promises. Every child born in America receives this dubious legacy: a $156,000 IOU.

Walker was in San Francisco on Tuesday, speaking at what participants call, "The Fiscal Wake-up Tour." Their first hurdle is to break through Americans' numbness on numbers. You see a tab in the billions, and it doesn't mean anything to you. So Walker puts the numbers in personal terms. The average household share of the federal fiscal mess is $411,000. Imagine if every household in America had a $411,000 mortgage, but no house.

You can thank the crew in Washington -- President Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress -- for, among other mistakes, passing a new Medicare prescription-drug benefit without paying for it. America's liabilities have more than doubled from some $20 trillion in 2000 to $46 trillion in 2005, according to the Government Accountability Office.

There is no easy fix, as Alison Acosta Fraser of the right-leaning Heritage Foundation noted. Conservatives like to talk about eliminating luxury items, like the National Endowment for the Arts, and pork-barrel projects that lawmakers insert into spending bills.

Fraser agreed that the pork projects should be targeted because they are "emblematic" of Washington's overspending ways. Still, you can cut the pork earmarks, the NEA, as well as NASA and all foreign aid, and the result would be a blip in the overall picture. Federal spending would fall from an anticipated 50 percent of the Gross Domestic Product in 2050, to 48 percent of GDP, she said.

The situation is so dire, that, despite Heritage's long-standing aversion to tax increases, Fraser accepts that a proposed bipartisan commission on entitlement spending would have to look at raising taxes to fund Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits -- although she is careful to stipulate that she opposes increasing tax rates.

From the left-leaning Brookings Institution, Diane Lim Rogers noted that America cannot balance future budgets on "tax cuts alone." Spending cuts have to be part of the package.

Rogers noted that all Washington has "given up" on Congress doing anything important this year, although Walker believes that a bipartisan commission could provide the answer. In this era of intense partisan rancor, the thinking goes, only a bipartisan commission would have the brass to both raises taxes and cut spending.

Whenever I write a column like this, readers e-mail me to ask what they can do. There is no easy answer. Sure, readers can tell their congressional representatives that they want a bipartisan commission and that they want Washington to reduce the deficit. Now.

The fact is, those messages will ring hollow in a Capitol where politicians know very well that the best way to win re-election is to promise something for nothing.

So here's my advice: In state and local politics, look for the candidate who tells you what you don't want to hear. Look for the rare pol who argues that you -- not someone else -- have to give up something. Then vote for that person.

The old saw says that people get the government they deserve. But if Washington continues to borrow and spend, your children and grandkids will pay mightily for a government they didn't deserve because they didn't elect it.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Everybody likes to cut taxes and everybody also likes to increase spending. Is this a great system, or what?

A great step in the right direction would be to embrace MikeMover's favorite cause, "FairTax", and also to find a way to give the president (ANY president) a line item veto. Congress could over-ride the veto if they thought the item sufficiently compelling.

Downsize the grotesquely bloated Pentagon budget by 3/4 and give everyone their long overdue Peace dividend, which would include paying down the national debt.

But then we'd only have a military one fourth as large as the rest of the world combined. That's no way to be a hegemon.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

What they fail to mention is future entitlements are to be paid back to us, the citizens, so part of that "mortgage" is owed to ourselves.

__________________
MB-less

That would be a good step. Right now with the tension over Bush gradually usurping some congressional powers it could be a tough sell. The Chron had a column by Robyn Blummer on that which is not bad, for a young looking cutie. I thought about making a thread out of it, but any Bush critical thread might get tomatoes thrown at it.

It would take one hell of a bright lamp at noontime to find some courageous politicians in Congress. Pete McCloskey is running against Pombo -- Nat. Park real estate mogul Pombo -- and I'm going to give him some money.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Don't buy into that 'Social Security Trust Fund' crapola either, SS taxes are nothing but a wealth redistribution from one generation to another, younger to older. There is no account with your name on it. Despite assurances, there is no requirement for the Gov't to pay you in the future for the taxes it takes today.

__________________
Regards

Warren

Currently 1965 220Sb, 2002 FORD Crown Vic Police Interceptor

Had 1965 220SEb, 1967 230S, 280SE 4.5, 300SE (W126), 420SEL

ENTER > = (HP RPN)

Not part of the in-crowd since 1952.

Amazing how some people think that SS taxes are kept somewhere, somehow, until we retire.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Outlaw making a career of politics. Make a maximum of 2 terms in office and then no more gov work for the person, eliminate all retirement benefits for elected folk, privatize at least 50% of all government jobs, cut 50% of the folk from welfare and related benefits…Step back from the increasingly paranoid perception that our government needs to track everyone and every thing.

In short, change the nature of government from being in it for no reason other than the advancement of government jobs, to government being the servant of the public. Right now the public is the servant of government.

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

I used to think that term limits would be a good thing. However, having become a part of the entrenched bureaucracy, I believe the result of term limits would be a cure more dangerous than the disease, because it would invest greater power in the unelected executive bureaucracy. At this time elected politicians and appointed leadership are in a pretty near constant struggle with the bureaucracy, resulting in a sort of parity in which the bureaucracy may grouse to the press (on "deep background") but if the appointees are persistent, can impose change on the bureaucracy. Change in the bureaucracy should always be imposed by the elected and appointed heads of departments. To allow departmental bureaucracies to set their own policy agendas would be an invitation to an interesting form of despotism, as in the movie, "Brasil" perhaps.

Perhaps the only truly innovative policy implemented by Clinton/Gore was the requirement that every program and every program manager in government must write a justification for why their particular job is inherently a governmental function. The result has been a tremendous shift from lower-level GS employees of government to private contractors performing those jobs. The advantage of the shift to contractors is that when a contract expires the people go away. That never happens in gov.

I agree with the Reaganites words (if not their deeds) that government is best controlled by starvation. Cut funding, or at least don't increase funding to maintain inflation parity. Part of what causes inflation (IMO) is the constant increases in budgets to account for inflation. Discretionary spending is so small now that cutting spending in most departments of government would have very little effect. What is left to cut is DoD and SSI.

I liked the post but am only going to respond to one element. But there is ample fodder for discussion.

I don’t understand why you suggest getting rid of career gov workers put more control in the hands of the non elected? The job descriptions would not need or want to be changed. Are you suggesting control by intimidation?

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

I think we're confusing terminology, here. In gov parlance, elected and appointed folks are not career employees. Career employees are hired.

My bad. I inadvertently made a confluence of career elected (& appointed) and career government employee folk. My comment above applied to career elected (& appointed) folk.

so....I don’t understand why you suggest getting rid of career gov (elected and appointed) workers put more control in the hands of the non elected? The job descriptions would not need or want to be changed. Are you suggesting control by intimidation?

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

In either case, power accrues to longevity. elected or appointed folks are term-limited then the bureaucracy gains power. After an elected or appointed person has been in office for a couple of terms he and his staff have a fair idea where and how the bureaucracy hides the bodies.

Imagine for example the Pentagon, if it were run more by the bureaucracy rather than appointed people. bureaucracies are extremely conservative (in the sense of resisting change, not in the current political definition). The institution would resist modernization or strategic change because every little domain has its local satrap who commands a budget and gains status by making it's budget grown at a greater rate then other satraps' budgets.

Without strong direction from the appointees and constant pressure from Congressional oversight each of those domains will demand and probably receive increasing budgets and decreasing cost effectiveness. Effective leadership from the appointees and strong oversight from Congress requires knowledgeable, tough-minded people to force change in the bureaucracy.

On the flip side, Congressmen who've been in office for many election cycles often eventually become part of the conservative element resistent to institutional change. This reduces Congressional ability to think "outside of the box."

I think a more flexible approach to forcing changes in Congress would be to stop the gerrymandering to create 'safe' seats for one party or the other. "Safe seats" encourage party entrenchment on key issues and reduce the probability of compromise. Here's why.

Let's say MikeMover represents a congressional district that is 85% white, middleclass conservatives. Why should MikeMover reach out to people across teh aisle? As long as MikeMover stays in touch with his constituency and doesn't take too many bribes, MikeMover is a de facto permanent Congressman. In contrast, we have the other MM.

MedMech represents a diverse congressional district that is 30% black, 30% Latino, 30% white, and 10% Asian. Each of these racial groups is about 50% middle income or above. If MedMech wants to keep his seat he better learn how to talk to these various groups and convince them with his voting record that MedMech is the best possible representative for each of those groups. This will require moderation of any extreme position but and open acceptance of legitimate compromise.

Guess what? That is the definition of SS and why it exists. How can you say there is no requirement to distribute? Would that not be part of the law that created SS? (I do not know the wording). Are you aware of any instance where the government failed to pay?

__________________
MB-less