FOX Business: Bulls & Bears- David Asman: ‘National Debt Surpasses $22 Trillion’

Source:FOX Business– Our national credit card debt.

Source:The New Democrat

“Bulls & Bears” panel on how the U.S. national debt surpassed $22 trillion and whether the drop in tax revenues will be blamed on President Trump.

FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York — the business capital of the world — FBN launched in October 2007 and is the leading business network on television, topping CNBC in Business Day viewers for the second consecutive year. The network is available in more than 80 million homes in all markets across the United States. Owned by FOX, FBN has bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and London.”

From FOX Business  

Replace Donald Trump with Barack Obama as President with 22 trillion national debt and a big tax cut from last year and have with this same panel on this show and let’s hear them talk about how the national debt is not that big of a deal or a real concern. You might think that you’re death trying to hear that conversation, simply because you would never hear them talking that way. Other than maybe Steve Forbes who never believed that the national debt and deficits are that big of a deal regardless of who the President is and the size of the deficit and debt, you wouldn’t hear that conversation at all.

You would instead hear things like: “those tax and spend Democrats are sending America into bankruptcy and borrowing and spending America’s future.” The old Tea Party arguments ( and they are old ) from 2011, 12, and 13 would come back again. My whole point here is when you have a national debt that’s 80-90% of your economy and it’s a big deal, then the national debt is even larger than that now especially when your economy is growing at 2-3% a year and you have unemployment at less than 4%, then it’s a big deal when the national debt is even bigger as it’s now. The national debt and deficits knows no political parties and isn’t interested in politics at all. If the national debt is a big deal, then it’s a big deal regardless of which party is in power at The White House.

The only difference here is that we have a Republican President instead of a Democratic President, with Republicans feeling no political advantage whatsoever in talking about the dangers of the national debt when their party is in The White House. Which is a bad thing because the national debt was a problem during the Obama Administration and probably had some affect on the lack of economic growth in the economy, even though job growth was very solid for most of the Obama Presidency, but economic growth tended to lag behind that job growth.

But it’s a bigger problem now especially with the economy growing now and with the Republican Congress and President Trump the last two years voluntarily raising the debt and deficit with new spending and tax cuts when they didn’t have to, when instead they could’ve started paying down the deficit and moving the country towards a balanced budget. Again, the national debt doesn’t know politics and political parties and is there regardless of who is in The White House and running Congress. So when politicians try to take advantage of it when they’re out-of-power, it can come back to bite them once they’re back in power and the national debt grows ever larger on their watch.

Read Full Post »

Fix The Debt: 6 Things That Congress Should Do As It Considers The Federal Budget & Government Spending

Source: Fix The Debt

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

“The Fix the Debt Campaign is bringing together Americans from all walks of life and from across the country to get the national debt under control. Learn more and join us.”

What Fix The Debt really only offers here are goals that they would like to see accomplished in the next Federal budget that Congress passes and the President signs. Which may happen as soon as 2050 since Congress no longer passes budgets The the last budget that Congress passed was in 2006. What they do instead is pass some appropriations bills and generally its real just the House that passes any appropriations bills. And September comes along which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone since September is an annual event in America and Congress realizes that the Federal Government funding is about to run out and decides to pass a short-term spending bill keeping the entire government running until the end of the year generally.

It use to be better than this when Congress would pass an omnibus bill generally in December that would fund the entire government until the following September. Omnibus bills are one appropriation bill passed by Congress instead of all 13 bills and passed instead of a budget. They’re not as good as a budget that comes with appropriations bills later on, but are certainly better than running a Federal Government with a four-trillion-dollar budget and without around five-million employees three or four months at a time. Better for the workers and better for the economy, because investors don’t have to worry about government shutdowns as much and the negative impact they have on the economy.

The only real solution that Fix The Debt offers here and I doubt the author of this article is actually named Fix The Debt, I mean that is no name for a real human being, but no name for the author is given here, but all they talk about is Congress should pass a budget. Pass a budget that puts us on path to reducing the national deb. And then they offer only one real solution in their article which is called PAYGO. Which is a wonky eggheaded term that in American English means pay as you go.

Makes sense right, is you’re going to purchase something pay for it instead of running up big credit card bills that you can’t pay back or writing checks that bounce like fully pumped basketballs that are slammed on a highway. But Congress doesn’t operate in the real world. They operate in the world of political bases and political contributions. And tend to see their number one job is to get reelected. Especially if they’re in the leadership of the major party in the House and Senate and don’t want to lose their majority during the next election. Or if they’re in the leadership in the minority party they tend to see their number one job is to not only get reelected but add to their membership and win back the House or Senate.

So as long as Congress functions on short-term spending bills and the only real deadline they care about are their primary elections and election days, we’ll never see any real solutions to addressing the big deficit of six-hundred-billion dollars and the national debt of twenty-trillion-dollars. Because addressing these issues will cost political capital and support. Because it will mean addressing entitlements, the defense budget, the tax code, emergency spending like disaster relief, and our public assistance anti-poverty programs so we have fewer Americans living and working in poverty and more Americans working and paying payroll and Federal income taxes.

But if you’re looking for real solutions that might happen at some point in the future, or more realistically could happen in the short-term, I believe PAYGO and disaster relief reform might be the only things that could pass both the House and Senate and get signed by President Trump. Applying PAYGO to disaster relief and the defense budget. No more waiting until the hurricane season in the late summer to realize that we may need a lot of money to pay for that cleanup and help people be able to get back to their lives. With Congress passing a disaster relief package of somewhere around 50-100 billion dollars that of course is put on the national credit card. (Another way of saying national debt)

But instead showing some common sense (almost as rare as July snow in Los Angeles, in Congress) and knowing that August and September are annual events in America and are hurricane season in the Southeast, as well as the Southwest in Texas with all the heat and humidity and that this is a region that will probably get hit by at least one storm and that it could be a major storm and that this region is probably going to need a lost of assistance to handle any recovery that might be needed. And again, to go back to the need for the Federal budget that the Administration and Congress should plan for these events upfront and pay for them upfront.

We need a natural disaster fund in America that should be paid for by the people who receive that assistance when their property is hit by one of these major storms and need financial assistance in order to recover from it. People who live in higher risk areas should pay more for this insurance because they’ll get more assistance when they are hit by a storm or some other natural disaster. This would save the Federal Government 20, 50, perhaps even 100 billion dollars or more each year, as well as taxpayers because the Feds would no longer have to borrow to pay for disaster relief and taxpayers would have less interest to pay back on the national debt when they make purchases.

A fully functioning PAYGO that is tied to the entire Federal budget whether its disaster relief, as well as the defense budget and increases to all parts of the Federal budget including invasions, humanitarian relief efforts that are Defense Department are involved in, repairing and building new bases, alone won’t fix the deficit and the national debt. We really need a comprehensive approach here that deals with the tax code, entitlements, poverty assistance, as well as defense and disaster relief. But it would be a good step forward and tell the markets and Wall Street that the U.S. Government is finally serious about the national debt and sees it as a national priority and at the very least will stop asking to the problem that it created.

Source: Crash Course 

Crash Course: Adrienne Hill & Jacob Clifford- Deficits a& Debt

Read Full Post »

President Ronald Reagan: On Taxes, Spending & Debt

Source:Ronald Reagan Foundation– President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, California) 1981-89

Ronald Reagan: “The problem isn’t that the people are taxed too little, the government spends too much.”

I wish that President Reagan had taken his own advice as President. And maybe he wouldn’t have run the debt so high with his supply side, borrow and spend, defense buildup at all costs, except for paying for it. Except other then borrowing money from other countries to pay for it.

Read Full Post »

Committee For a Responsible Budget: ‘Tax Reform and The Size of Government’

Source:Tax Foundation– I’m sorry I couldn’t make this photo any bigger. LOL

“As we begin to enter the dog days of summer, the weather is not the only thing that is heating up. The tax reform debate is beginning to escalate also as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) begin their tour of the U.S. to drum up support for reforming the tax system.

There are many different reasons to take up tax reform including making the code simpler, fairer and more conducive to economic growth, but a recent paper by Donald Marron and Eric Toder of the Tax Policy Center makes another point: tax reform could shrink the government’s overall role in the economy even as it raises revenue. Marron and Toder argue that the true size of government may be hidden by traditional statistics, since most tax expenditures count as tax cuts in the budget instead of spending programs…

From CRFB 

Oh, yes tax reform, the time when Democrats and Republicans get to talk about what they would do, if they were the Washington Kings (which is not a sports franchise) and had all the power to do exactly what they wanted to do, if only that other party would just go way. Perhaps go down to Union Station or out to National Airport and get out-of-town and let them govern for a while. Which is exactly what tax reform debates tend to be like, especially in a divided Congress, in a divided government. Could 2013 be different? Potentially, since every new year is exactly that. But I’m more impressed with reason and the reasonable, as opposed to the potential and possible.

Read Full Post »

Only Waxing: Real Time With Bill Maher- The Paul Ryan Budget

Source:Only Waxing– Elliot Spitzer on Real Time With Bill Maher.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Andrew Sullivan Schools Maher and Spitzer on Paul Ryan and Budget. Very surprising.”

From Only Waxing

What Representative Paul Ryan (Chairman of the Budget Committee) tried to do in the last Congress and so far in this Congress, was an attempt at least on paper to balance the Federal budget. But by only concentrating on around 15-20% of the Federal budget.

And most of those cuts coming from non-Social Security and Medicare social-insurance programs. And if you saw Bill Maher in this video someone who I normally disagree with layout, Chairman Ryan attempts to balance the budget by going after the small appetizers or side dishes. Imagine a meal consisting of steak, mashed potatoes and lets say a caesar salad (good meal, right) instead of targeting the meat of the meal or even the potatoes the stuff that fills people up in the meal normally. What Chairman Ryan goes after a couple of leafs in the meal. “Big meal with too much food, we are going to take away a couple of leafs and call it fat reduction instead of deficit reduction.”

The meat and potatoes in the United States Government’s budget is defense, Social Security, Medicare and to a certain extent Medicaid. And then there are a bunch of public assistance programs of around 30 trillion-dollars or so that aids workers who do not make enough money, or are unemployed. Which is why I believe Paul Ryan and his followers are as interested in deficit reduction, as the typical career politician (lets say House or Senate) is interested in raising taxes or cutting Social Security during an election year when they are up for reelection, or getting a real job and earning their money. In others words: not at all.

If House Republicans were serious about deficit reduction, then they would write and pass a plan that solves the problem by going at the meat of the Federal budget. And not just picking away at salad leaves in it. Chairman Ryan is right I believe about the seriousness of the debt and deficit, but is not ready to solve the problems.

If I’m starving and its late at night and I haven’t had anything to eat all day, I don’t snack on a couple of crackers thinking my hunger will go away. I make myself a meal or buy one. The same thing with deficit reduction, that if you are serious about the budget you go where the meat is. Or in this case the money and you cut back in areas where you can afford to save money. That will help you solve the problem.

Read Full Post »

The Nation: George Zornick- ‘A Truly Progressive Budget Vision’

Source:The Nation– U.S. Representative Keith Eillison (Democrat, Minnesota) Co-Chair of the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus, in the House.

Source:The Daily Times

“Paul Ryan’s recently released budget will not become law—at least not any time soon. The Democratic Senate would never pass it, President Obama would never sign it. Ryan surely knows this, and his proposal is a fantasy budget: more an ideological argument than genuine attempt at legislating.

That hasn’t stopped widespread media coverage of Ryan’s proposal, and that’s fine: he’s a leading thinker of the conservative movement, with real power. But corresponding attention should also be paid to the opposite ideological vision sketched out by the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the “Back to Work” budget proposal, released on Wednesday.”

From The Nation

I’ll give the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) credit for once: they have moderated a little from 2011. Two years ago their budget plan called for eliminating all of the Bush tax cuts including those for the middle class. And using all of that money on infrastructure and creating new Federal Government New Deal era programs. But even some of their members now see how bad of an idea it is to pass middle class tax hikes in a struggling economy.

So now what the so-called CPC has done instead is put all of that new tax burden on wealthy individuals and business’s. Leaving our high corporate tax at 35% in place and closing a lot of corporate tax loopholes. So short-term that may sound fiscally responsible because you are attempting to pay for new government spending. But are the results instead, business’s move that money out of the country to avoid paying those high taxes.

The so called Back To Work Budget Plan from the CPC is as dead as disco or high-water pants. Or people dancing to disco in high-water pants. People dancing disco in the ocean, in high-water pants (If you can’t wear high-water pants in the ocean, where can you wear them?) Why, because very few people in Congress believe that government should have all of that power when it comes to job creation. That what we should be doing instead is freeing up capitol in the private sector so they have work to do and have a need to hire new employees.

What makes great economic sense when it comes to infrastructure investment, is government sets priorities and then rewards contracts to private companies to do the work. Rather than government or the private sector having most of the power and why its the ultimate private/public partnership.

Infrastructure investment that’s needed, especially in a sluggish economy, always makes great economic sense. The question is always how is it paid for. The CPC has their approach, but the reason why a lot of their ideas are usually dead as high-water pants and disco George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, is because they generally don’t have much if any power, even in their party and Congress, but they’re so far out in left field, even in the Democratic Party.

Read Full Post »

Chicago Tribune: ‘A Deficit of Ambition’

Source:Bloomberg News– with a look at budget deficits.

“There is no one alive more revered and beloved among Democrats than Bill Clinton, who showed at last year’s national convention what a rock star he is. One of his most historic achievements as president was something that eluded Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush: balancing the federal budget. He did it four straight years. For Democrats, it was cause for great pride.

But that was a long time ago. Last week, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., produced a budget plan — the first one to come from the Senate in four years. She did so shortly after House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., unveiled his.

The two blueprints have many differences, but the biggest of all is that Ryan’s aims at eliminating the annual federal deficit by 2023. Murray’s would balance the budget … well, never. In 2023, the Democratic budget’s deficit would be $566 billion. Over the coming decade, her plan would add $5.2 trillion to the total debt — more than four times the $1.2 trillion the Ryan version would add.”

From the Chicago Tribune

At least Senate Democrats are honest when they talk about their priorities (to sort of defend them against this Chicago Tribune editorial) when they say their number one priority right now is the economy. And they also acknowledge to have a strong economy deficit reduction needs to happen now and into the future.

But deficit reduction can’t be the only only goal right now because without a strong growing economy with more people working and out of poverty, you can forget about ever reaching a balance budget. Or achieving serious deficit reduction because the costs that comes from lack of economic growth and high unemployment will wipeout whatever savings you make from cutting spending which is something that. The House Republican Leadership simply doesn’t understand or won’t acknowledge.

The Republican Leadership economic policy is still built around increasing the defense budget at a time when the Defense Department doesn’t need anymore money, they just can’t afford to be cut further. And tax cuts in the trillions of dollars that most benefit the wealthy and aren’t paid for. Back to George W. Bush borrow and spend economic.

Democrats want a combination of spending cuts but doing it in a way that doesn’t hurt anyone who needs that assistance. And not just targeting areas where most of the money in the Federal budget isn’t like in infrastructure, research, poverty assistance. But targeting areas that need to be reformed like in entitlements and defense and the tax code. As well as investing in things that benefit the economy like infrastructure.

If both sides were serious about deficit reduction, then both sides would present a serious plan that goes where the money actually is. Entitlements, defense and the tax code and reforming those areas and looking for savings there. As well as presenting plans that would boost economic growth like in infrastructure and tax cuts that encourage economic development in America instead of sending that money oversees. But we are still in the early stages of this debate and both sides aren’t ready to do that yet.

Read Full Post »

Senate Republicans: ‘U.S. Senator Jeff Session- ‘If Republicans Get Senate Majority, We Will Pass A Budget’

Source:Senate Republicans– U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (Republican, Alabama) Ranking Member on the Budget Committee.

“WASHINGTON, March 20–Sen. Sessions, Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, jointed with Chairman Paul Ryan and members of the House Budget Comittee as they unveiled their FY13 budget plan to address America’s growing financial crisis. By contrast, the Democrat-run Senate has failed to deliver a budget plan for 1,056 days. This is the third year running that they will forego this fundamental obligation, even as America’s debt continues its dangerous ascent. In his remarks, Sessions addressed how things would be different were Republicans to have the privelege of a senate majority:

“We have never needed a budget more now than we need it today: we are facing a systemic threat to America’s financial health… Senate Democrats have abandoned their obligations, and have refused to offer a budget for now three straight years now…If the voters give the Republicans in the Senate the honor of having the majority [next year], we will work with the House to pass a congressional budget. It will be an honest budget. It will change the debt course of America.”

From the Senate Republicans

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday afternoon showed again that they are not ready to make a big decision on another key issue, the Federal budget. In a way this is good because the House GOP budget should never become law.

The House GOP plan transforms Medicare into a voucher system. It puts most if not all the budget deficit on our safety net. And doesn’t do a damn thing to reduce overall spending on defense. Or repeal the tax cuts for high- earners, or end corporate welfare. This House budget went down overwhelmingly 57-40.

Senate Minority Leader McConnell brought up what he called President Obama’s Federal budget plan. Which was more of a set of goals than anything and not a serious proposal. And that went down by a whopping 97-0.

But with Senate Democrats apparently incapable of offering a serious budget proposal that gets our deficit and debt under control in a responsible way, the Senate was left with a choice of two budget plans that will never become law.

Even though the Senate minority can’t block budget related items and the Senate Democrats have a three seat majority, they have been incapable so far of coming up with their own budget plan that they can pass and send to the House.

It would be both great politics and policy for Senate Democrats led by Senator Kent Conrad Chairman of the Budget Committee, to develop their own budget plan that’s responsible and pays down the deficit. Because they would have something to counter the House with and be able to take it on the campaign trail: “This is what we want to do and this is what House and Senate Republicans voted for.” And have a major campaign issue, meaning Medicare to use to retake the House in 2012 and keep control of the Senate.

Between the House and Senate roughly 280 Republicans members of Congress voted for the House GOP budget. That cost the GOP a House seat Tuesday night. This is something they could take nationally. (Just a thought)

Leadership is about choosing and governing. Not you can sit on your hands when you’re in the opposition and minority. This is a lesson that the White House and the Senate Democratic Leadership should learn. The House Democratic Leadership drafted its budget plan and they are in the minority as well.

Read Full Post »

Fox News Opinion: Wayne A. Root- ‘Mr. Obama, We Don’t Have a Tax Problem, We Have a Spending Problem’

Source:FOX News– President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois)

“Did you see President Obama’s new 2013 budget? It’s filled with $1.5 trillion in tax increases for the rich.

It appears that the president and his leftist cabal believe we are all stupid. They believe if you tell enough lies, the lies become fact. They spend all day, every day, trying to convince Americans that taxes on the rich are too low.

The reality is taxes are not low at all. If you think they are, you’ve either been brainwashed, or you aren’t paying taxes. The truth is: The taxes are too damn high.

We do have a serious problem in this country. But it’s not a tax problem. It is a spending problem.”

From Fox News Opinion

The Federal Government has a spending problem and the main problem with it is that we’ve had that problem since 2001 and haven’t solved it. And that problem has gotten worse each year since.

The Great Recession has only made it worse, because of all the money thats been borrowed to deal with it on top of two wars, 2T$ that weren’t paid for, 2T$ in tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a 500B$ Medicare Advantage plan that wasn’t paid for and so- forth. This is where the deficit issues exists, not what the money was spent on, but how it was spent thats the issue, because it was all borrowed, all put on the national debt card, that we are all paying a heavy price for. And as a result we have to start paying our bills as a Federal Government.

We got to stop spending money on things we can no longer afford. Reform things that we need, that are too expensive and not efficient enough. And generate a better economy, which needs to be about generating more economic growth, so we can have more people working in this country and paying taxes.

I could live with all of the Bush tax cuts staying in place, if we get tax reform in its place where the whole country is paying their fair share of taxes based on what they get out of the economy. That means eliminating most if not all tax loopholes. We wouldn’t even have to raise capital gains taxes, with the tax reform I’m in favor of. We wouldn’t have to raise income taxes on anyone, with the tax reform I’m in favor of.

With low tax rates across the board we would have to eliminate things in the tax code that we simply can no longer afford that is junk. And that gets to eliminating all corporate welfare and bailing people and business’s out when they fail. Which is why I’m in favor of what I call a Progressive Consumption Tax to replace the income tax, but just to replace the income tax. Making it progressive, so things that people need to survive: basic needs, food, clothing, medicine, etc, would be taxed very low (lets say 5%) to prevent cost of living expenses from going up. But then luxury items would be taxed higher. Like movies, vacations, Luxury Cars, 2nd Homes, etc.

As far as spending, we need to cut and eliminate in areas we can no longer afford. Like defending the developed world and demanding that Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Korea defend themselves. Or pay us to defend, supply or train them.

Our social insurance system has to be reformed, so people who don’t need these programs no longer collect from them and that the Federal Government is longer trying to run all of them.

In a country of 310M people, we should pass the social programs down to the states. Instead, let each state have their own social insurance system, that would have to meet basic Federal standards. And then have them converted into semi-private, non-profit, self-financed community services, in the business to serve the people eligible for them. Which gets to temporary financial assistance, but take it a step forward and empower them to get themselves off of public assistance.

We have a debt problem because we’ve borrowed way too much money as a Federal Government, that we have to pay back. And we can do these things through budget cuts, government reform, and tax teform. And creating an economy to have the most people working possible.

Read Full Post »

The Independent Institute: Alexander Tabbarrok- ‘The Innovation Nation vs. the Warfare-Welfare State: Newsroom’

Source:The Independent Institute– American democracy in action.

“This is our national identity crisis in a nutshell: Do we want government spending half its money on redistribution and military, or re-dedicating itself to science, infrastructure, and health research?”

Source:The Independent Institute

If you add up the size of the United States Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense budget, it adds up to over 2T$ a year in a Federal budget pushing 4T$ and in an economy of 15T$. Which leaves about 2T$ in the Federal budget for the rest of its priorities.

Because of our Defense budget and entitlement programs, things  like infrastructure investment where the U.S. Core of Engineers estimates we need about 1T$ alone in expansion and in repairs. I’m not calling for a larger Federal budget to go with what we already have, but what I’m saying that in especially with the size of our debt and deficit we need to do a much better job with our limited resources in how we fund the things that.

We should be doing better and cutting back in the areas we should be spending less. Or not be spending at all, especially in the Defense budget, safety net and tax code. Running a safety net thats over 2T$ a year alone, that could be run better if it was run differently. A Defense budget where we defend developed countries all over the world that can afford to defend themselves. And a tax code where we give out corporate welfare.

We need an economic system that still encourages quality education, hard work, and production, that still rewards those things with our low tax rates,  but where we empower people who get left behind because they didn’t have access to a quality education or made mistakes early in life.

We should be empowering low-skilled, low-income Americans to get off of public assistance or leave their low-income, low-skilled jobs by going back to school and getting a good education and job training so they can become self-sufficient. As well as a better education system so less people fall behind in the future because they were able to get a good education early on.

We need an education system that  rewards educators for the job that they do. Not how long they’ve been doing them. Where parents can send their kids to the school based on what’s the best school for them. Not based on where they live.

We need an infrastructure system so we have good enough roads and bridges, so people can get around but also so they aren’t falling apart.

Going forward we need a safety net thats decentralized and where the Federal Government is not trying to run everything, that empowers people that only need it and is as close to the people who do need it as possible. I would turn the entire Federal safety net over to the states and have them convert their version of these programs into semi-private, non-profit community services, that are design to only empower the people who need them.

Pull all of our troops out of developed nations that can afford to defend themselves.

Rip up the Federal tax code and start over and eliminate all of the corporate welfare in it. We could save the Federal budget over 2T$ a year alone to do that.

Encourage our public education systems to start rewarding good educators and firing or retraining low- performing educators.

Public school choice so the parents could decide where they send their kids to school.

And a public infrastructure system that does the 1T$ in repairs and expansion that the country needs with a National Infrastructure Bank thats Independent of the Federal Government and self-financed.

America does not need to be like Scandinavia to get our debt and deficit under control or to fix our economy. We don’t need a social democracy (sorry, Socialists) but we do need to get back to American capitalism and liberal democracy that rewards quality education, hard work, and production and empowers the people left behind to become self-sufficient.

We also need a limited foreign policy that recognizes the limits of American power and best utilizes the assets that we have instead. And we can continue to be a superpower, but we can’t stay that way indefinitely, unless we fix what’s broke with our country.

Read Full Post »