# Heritage foundation and Brookings Institute thinkers agree: We're in trouble. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 19, 2005, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535 "2005-05-19T04:23:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![QuizCustodet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ba0ec/32.png) [@QuizCustodet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuizCustodet)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/21 "2005-05-19T15:46:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Seems to me most European nations have healthier and more sustainable economies than we’ve got now – that’s the impression I got from _The United States of Europe_ by T.R. Reid ([http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200335/qid=1116513503/sr=8-1/ref=pd\_csp\_1/102-8052781-0422517?v=glance&s=books&n=507846](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200335/qid=1116513503/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-8052781-0422517?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)) – and they all have welfare states that would be unthinkable here. Whether their public budgets proportional to GDP are larger than ours is another question, and I have no cites handy. The European nations have huge welfare states but negligible defense budgets, compared to the U.S. OTOH, they have less of a deficit-spending problem – no country is allowed to join in the euro unless its budget deficit is less than 3% of GDP. Not necessarily true. Britain is the only ‘traditional’ European state with a particularly healthy economy at the moment, and this can as easily be credited to its relatively restrained welfare state and Atlanticist economic policies. This \article\ shows that the stability pact that you refer to with the 3% claim is not anything like a watertight guarantee. European states are suffering in much the same way as the US currently, and so are doing more deficit spending. They don’t have to shoulder the costs of the war in Iraq, which is a big savings. Many people would also argue that it’s an unfair comparison, given that thanks to NATO, America has effectively been subsidising the defence budgets of all of Western Europe. Before one claims that Europe is particularly better off, have a look at the archives of any European news organization and search for ‘pensions’. With ageing populations and much more generous retirement benefits, everybody between Shannon and Checkpoint Charlie’s got problems. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/22 "2005-05-19T15:48:08Z")
**Metacom:** \*There’s no way in hell our political system (including BOTH major parties) are going to tackle an issue that won’t impact us for 35 years. \* I don’t think it’s argued that the problems of current fiscal policies won’t **impact** us till 2040. Simply that they won’t reduce us to absolute bankruptcy and disastrous economic implosion before that time. After all, the projections suggest that “[t]he only thing the United States is able to do a little after 2040 is pay interest on massive and growing federal debt”. Imagine having such a huge personal debt load that it took every cent of your income just to pay the interest to your credit card company. Nothing left over for rent or mortgage, food, transportation, clothing, SDMB membership, nada, zip. You’d be in pretty bad financial shape. Does that mean that as long as the interest of your debt isn’t actually consuming your **entire** income, you’re in **good** financial shape? Of course not. Even much lower debt levels would have a serious negative impact on your financial situation and be difficult to handle. Similarly, the mere fact that our national budget deficits aren’t projected actually to consume **all** of our national income until 2040 doesn’t mean that we don’t need to start worrying until 2039. Large and rapidly growing debts get you in serious trouble well before they eat you up entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/23 "2005-05-19T16:11:41Z")
Seems like the discussion is focussing on the “raise taxes” half of the solution. What spending cuts can we agree on? Keeping in mind that they are all going to have to come from popular programs like Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, defense and suchlike. How much should we cut Medicare, and how do we deal with the screaming if we do? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/24 "2005-05-19T16:18:15Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Seems like the discussion is focussing on the “raise taxes” half of the solution. > > What spending cuts can we agree on? What spending cuts could we Dopers agree on? Probably a bunch, including most subsidies. What spending cuts could we Americans agree on? Probably none. That’s why the raise taxes half of the solution is so necessary in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/25 "2005-05-19T17:11:56Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Yeah, and if wishes were horses we’d all be eating steak.Which is why neither thinktank, which do tend to shill for their sponsors’ philosophies, can’t get it up to be optimistic. When those two groups agree that something is bad I get scared. Right, but they didn’t exactly predict the previous boom either. Anyway, that’s beside the point because I’m all for Doing Something Now. We can’t sustain having more gazoutas than gazindas. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/26 "2005-05-19T17:24:50Z")
> [@](#): > > However, the assumption that Democrats (in contrast to Republicans) isn’t accurate either. Not just in terms of the current administration, but going back over 40 years before them. The website [eRiposte.com](http://eRiposte.com) has summarized analyses produced by a number of sources, including data related to spending. Between 1962 and 2001, the percentage growth in total federal spending by Democrats was 6.96%, and by Republicans was 7.57%. During the same time, the percentage growth in non-defense spending specifically was, for Democrats: 8.34% and for Republicans: 10.08%. The yearly budget deficit was $36 billion for Democrats and $190 billion for Republicans. The increase in the national debt under Democrats was $0.72 trillion, and under Republicans was $3.8 trillion. If we included Bush’s data, I can only assume the contrast would be that much more stark. That’s all very nice, and I’m not gonna argue any of their specifics, but it seems overly simplified to me. They’re compiling all these numbers every year and dropping them in a column headed “Democrat President,” or the column “Republican President.” There’s no allowance for the many years when we had a Democratic majority in Congress and a Republican president. As we’re all aware, Congress is the branch of the government entrusted with the purse strings. Might be interesting to see the same spending dollars tallied up that way. It would provide a nice contrast, at least. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/27 "2005-05-19T17:28:36Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > What spending cuts could we Americans agree on? Probably none. If you’re looking for single, specific things to eliminate entirely so that the rest may live unscathed, you’re probably right. But I don’t see a huge problem with getting acceptance of across-the-board cuts that affect pretty much everyone - we can be responsible but we do insist on fairness. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/28 "2005-05-19T17:56:41Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > What spending cuts could we Dopers agree on? Probably a bunch, including most subsidies. > > What spending cuts could we Americans agree on? Probably none. That’s why the raise taxes half of the solution is so necessary in the real world. Which is nonsense. Raising taxes without cutting spending is not necessary, because it is not a solution. If you are running an unsustainable deficit, and you raise taxes by a billion dollars, politicians will increase spending by at least a billion dollars - probably more. Thus you have all the disadvantages of increased taxation without any benefit. Both the think tanks of the OP agree that we have to raise taxes and cut spending. Democrats seem to be saying, “Yes, let’s raise taxes”. And it often seems to be linked to a whole shit load of new programs that require increased spending. The only way to balance the budget is to [ul][li]raise taxes **and** cut spending [_]cut taxes and freeze spending and hope to grow your way out of the deficit [_]freeze taxes and cut spending.[/ul]Republican strategy seems to be to cut taxes and raise spending. Democratic strategy seems to be to raise taxes and raise spending. Neither strategy has a snowball’s chance in hell of eliminating the deficit. [/li] Face it - any steps that will be effective in eliminating the deficit are going to be _extremely unpopular_. And no, there isn’t any way around that. Any party that is going to balance the budget is going to be required to say “No” to programs that nobody wants to cut. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/29 "2005-05-19T18:02:56Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Which is nonsense. Raising taxes without cutting spending is not necessary, because it is not a solution. > > If you are running an unsustainable deficit, and you raise taxes by a billion dollars, politicians will increase spending by at least a billion dollars - probably more. Thus you have all the disadvantages of increased taxation without any benefit. But that does not prove that raising taxes without cutting spending is not a solution, because that would not **be** raising taxes without cutting spending. If you want to debate the idea, please debate it on its own merits, without simply assuming it is _ipso facto_ a political impossibility. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/30 "2005-05-19T18:21:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Which is nonsense. Raising taxes without cutting spending is not necessary, because it is not a solution. Sure it is. > [@](#): > > If you are running an unsustainable deficit, and you raise taxes by a billion dollars, politicians will increase spending by at least a billion dollars - probably more. Thus you have all the disadvantages of increased taxation without any benefit. Most likely. > [@](#): > > Both the think tanks of the OP agree that we have to raise taxes and cut spending. That’s the best way because you won’t have to raise taxes quite so much. > [@](#): > > Democrats seem to be saying, “Yes, let’s raise taxes”. And it often seems to be linked to a whole shit load of new programs that require increased spending. The spending increases were going to happen anyway. The Democrats simply say, well, um, maybe we should actually pay for this. > [@](#): > > Republican strategy seems to be to cut taxes and raise spending. Democratic strategy seems to be to raise taxes and raise spending. Neither strategy has a snowball’s chance in hell of eliminating the deficit. Well, technically, if you raised taxes by a much greater amount than you raised spending, then you could eliminate it. The problem seems to be that there is a common denominator in both approaches, that of increased spending. And that’s really because there’s no “approach” from either side. > [@](#): > > Face it - any steps that will be effective in eliminating the deficit are going to be _extremely unpopular_. And no, there isn’t any way around that. > > Any party that is going to balance the budget is going to be required to say “No” to programs that nobody wants to cut. Agreed, that’s why they’ll never get cut. Nobody wants to raise taxes **or** cut spending. The reason I called for the automatic tax increase kicker is because it will force them to balance the budget, otherwise the taxes will automatically increase - making them look bad. The public doesn’t pay attention to the budget in general because nobody’s hurting, taxes get decreased, programs aren’t cut. Suddenly, people start watching the budget because of the congress critters can’t get it right, their pocket books will be hurt. The whole thing, I think, will force Congress and the public in general to look a lot more closely at what we’re actually spending money on and whether people actually want to be paying for these programs or not. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/31 "2005-05-19T18:26:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Republican strategy seems to be to cut taxes and raise spending. Democratic strategy seems to be to raise taxes and raise spending. Neither strategy has a snowball’s chance in hell of eliminating the deficit. You’re relying on obsolete stereotypes. How do you know what Democratic strategy even is? When, since the GOP takeover, have they even had a say? The Republican practice has been to refuse to allow the elected representatives of nearly half the people even to _see_ the budget before voting on it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/32 "2005-05-19T18:41:00Z")
**Shodan:** _Both the think tanks of the OP agree that we have to raise taxes and cut spending. Democrats seem to be saying, “Yes, let’s raise taxes”._ **Shodan** , what are you basing that assertion on? The article linked in the OP doesn’t claim that this is what Democrats are saying. And the Democratic posters here don’t seem to be supporting the position that the preferred solution is tax increases without any spending cuts. So where are you getting the idea that this is what Democrats are advocating? ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/33 "2005-05-19T19:00:12Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I don’t think it’s argued that the problems of current fiscal policies won’t **impact** us till 2040. Simply that they won’t reduce us to absolute bankruptcy and disastrous economic implosion before that time. That’s a good point, but then the obvious question becomes: When _will_ it start impacting us enough that most citizens begin to feel it? Because until that happens, I have a hard time seeing it becoming a major political issue. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/34 "2005-05-19T19:20:10Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > More tax cuts, of course! No, no, no! That’s “More tax cuts **for the rich.** ” Stick to the script! > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Republicans seem to only be worried about deficits and spending when it’s Democrats doing the spending. Republicans, when they are in power, spend like crazy. In other words, IOKIARDI. > [@UncleBeer](#): > > They’re compiling all these numbers every year and dropping them in a column headed “Democrat President,” or the column “Republican President.” There’s no allowance for the many years when we had a Democratic majority in Congress and a Republican president. As we’re all aware, Congress is the branch of the government entrusted with the purse strings. Well, I’m no economist, but it seems to me that the current Republican-controlled Congress puts that matter to rest. After all, Bill Clinton had a Republican Congress to deal with, and he got things under control; one would imagine G. W. Bush should have an _easier_ time keeping the books balanced, instead of giving us the mess we’ve got now. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/35 "2005-05-19T20:19:18Z")
**Metacom:** \*but then the obvious question becomes: When will it start impacting us enough that most citizens begin to feel it? \* Well, some are arguing that the negative impacts have already begun. “Financial Sense” commentator Mark O’Byrne [wrote in January](http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2005/0119c.html), > [@](#): > > We remain bearish on the US$ but believe there is a possibility of a short term rally from these levels however due to the unsustainable fundamentals of the US economy with the record Trade Deficit, Current Account Deficit and Budget Deficit, not to mention the record Debt to GDP ratio of more than 305%, we believe the long term trend of the US$ is down against nearly all currencies and tangible assets. This will make assets priced in US$'s, such as US stocks and bonds, to become less attractive to both non-US and US investors and savers. And the triple deficits will also definitely impact negatively on the US stock and bond markets. The question is no longer if stocks and bonds will fall in value (causing interest rates to rise further negatively affecting the wider economy) rather when this inevitable correction happens. Another [investment advisor](http://www.greekshares.com/dollar_2005_preview.asp) commented: > [@](#): > > The widening budget deficit is important to currency markets because poses the risk of further swelling of government and household debt via higher interest rates. > > The argument goes as such; when US-bound foreign capital flows fail to cover the swelling trade deficit, foreign investors require a higher rate of return to hold US assets necessitated by rising rates, especially when the dollar depreciates in value. > > It is these higher rates that would exacerbate the personal and government debt. The dollar decline intensified after the elections on the rationale that president Bush will make the tax cuts permanent, thus erasing any hopes of stabilizing the swelling budget deficit. […] > > With both the trade and budget deficits accounting for more than 10% of GDP, and the US Administration showing no signs of containing the dollar slide, this had left very little choice for traders other than to get rid of the US currency. > > Looking ahead, we expect the dollar’s secular bear market to continue throughout 2005 due to a continuation (if not a deterioration) of the aforementioned factors. Although the Fed is set to raise rates, we see the structural deficiencies of the US economy, namely the twin deficits, overwhelming the advantages of higher US yields. > > The latest trend of monthly foreign capital flows failing to cover the monthly deficit will require foreign investors to demand higher rates of returns from US “paper,” in which case means a higher dollar or higher US rates. Neither the dollar will deliver that option, nor US rates can rise high enough to contain those concerns due to the mixed messages sent by the US economy. In other words, our unsustainable fiscal policies are making our currency less attractive to international investors, which will further weaken our currency relative to others, which will make it even less attractive as an investment, and so on. [South Korea](http://www.fiscalstudy.com/2005-global-news-flash/0223-south-korea-central-bank-nondollar-reserves.php) and [Russia](http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/351/14927_euro.html) have already decided to reduce their dependence on the dollar in stabilizing their own currencies. Does this portend an immediate financial crisis and a severe tanking of the US economy? I’m not an economist, but I doubt it. Does this portend immediate economic changes that are going to pinch people in the US? I’m still not an economist, but ISTM that it does, for example in rising interest rates. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/36 "2005-05-19T21:58:06Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > True. How the hell did the Republicans ever come to this pass where their leaders can get away with any amount of budgetary mayhem as long as it reduces tax levels? I can’t begin to tell you about my letter writing campaign to everyone from the GOP who sends me an email. So much to do and so little of me. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2005, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/37 "2005-05-19T22:06:50Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Well, I’m no economist, but it seems to me that the current Republican-controlled Congress puts that matter to rest. After all, Bill Clinton had a Republican Congress to deal with, and he got things under control; one would imagine G. W. Bush should have an easier time keeping the books balanced, instead of giving us the mess we’ve got now. I wouldn’t disagree with any of that too strenuously, rjung. But that analysis is still too simplistic to have much meaning. It really takes complicity between two of the three federal branches to significantly affect government revenues and spending; but the Constitution quite explicitly lays overall responsibility on doorstep of the Capitol Building. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2005, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/38 "2005-05-20T00:51:32Z")
In 1980, total U.S. government revenue was 517 billion dollars The projected revenue for the government for 2006 is 2.2 trillion dollars. Inflation over that period of time would make that 517 billion worth roughly 1.3 trillion today. In 1980 the population of the U.S. was 227 million, for an inflation-adjusted revenue of about $5726 per person. In 2005, the population of the U.S. is about 295 million people, for a per-capita revenue of about $7457 per person. So per-capita revenue has gone up by almost 50% in the past 25 years, despite the end of the cold war and the general increase in wealth of the population (and their resulting lower need for government services) The problem is not a lack of revenue. The problem is that spending is out of control. Trying to solve this problem by increasing revenue is like trying to stop a cocaine addict from going broke by giving him more money. All it does is give him the ability to buy more coke. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2005, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/39 "2005-05-20T00:52:46Z")
I should have added that that’s ‘on budget’ revenue (i.e. not including SS receipts). ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2005, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535/40 "2005-05-20T01:10:18Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > However, I think there’s a real need for it now. Neither of the parties can be trusted to not do moronic things like increase spending after decreasing taxes. I think the rules of what gets cut simply needs to be incorporated. For instance, the amendment might read that you’re not allowed to cut taxes without first cutting spending or that taxes automatically increase to cover the deficit. > > I think it would be fun watching the Congress critters scramble to figure out a way to get their pet projects funded without triggering the automatic tax increases. Good times. I’d make it a simple rule: Surpluses get returned (divide the amount by the number of citizens and mail everybody a check for the result), and that’s the government’s main anti-poverty program (it’s highly progressive, as a flat number of dollars is much more helpful to a poor person than a rich one). Under that system, running up more spending produces highly visible pain to everybody, and makes the spender a selfish uncompassionate bastard who is taking bread out of the mouths of the needy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/heritage-foundation-and-brookings-institute-thinkers-agree-were-in-trouble/304535.md?page=3)