Where is the leadership we need on national debt crisis as 'Super Committee' heads toward failure?
America could become Detroit.
Fifteen trillion and what do you get, another day older and deeper in debt.
Yeah, a take-off on the song, "Sixteen Tons" popularized by Tennessee Ernie Ford, that reached No. 1 in the Billboard charts in 1955.
Sadly it captures the fiscal mess our country is in due to the inability of our elected leaders, on both sides of the political aisle, to get serious about our dire and precarious fiscal situation.
The federal debt does not even including the staggering unfunded health care and pension liability that have built up at the state, county and municipal level and are ticking time-bombs. These bombs are exploding in Detroit.
Tom Watkins
Yet, the Super Committee, like Congress, appears paralyzed and headed for half-hearted measures or a stalemate.
The deadline is Tuesday to strike a deal about our collective future. Our elected leaders need to stop their pretending and spending ways.
Erskine Bowles, co-chairmen of President Obama' deficit reduction panel along with fellow co-chair Alan Simpson, whose efforts failed to get Congress to act -- captured how insane our debt crisis is when he pointed out America is borrowing money from China to defend Taiwan from China. He continued, "That's crazy."
Who can disagree?
We need to remind the super-committee that the captain of the Titanic only hit the iceberg once!
Change is clearly the most talked about and least acted on concept in our nations capitol. Change is hard. The only human that truly likes change is an infant!
But, change we must. If we keep doing what we have historically done we our going to skid into and economic ditch that we will never free ourselves from. Even making a sensible one-dollar change is proving near impossible in Washington, D.C.
Replacing the dollar bill with a dollar coin would save $5.6 billion over 30 years. It seems the paper dollars deteriorate in 3 years or less and need to be replaced, while coins can last forever.
We could also eliminate the penny, which cost the U.S. Treasury 2 cents each to make, and we lose $70 million a year minting!
Former U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen coined the phrase: “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
Ask the question, if this was your money (it is you know): Would you make the change?
Yet, the special interest do not roll over easily. In the case of the dollar bill the ink and paper lobbies claim it makes no sense to make the change.
Real change is going to take real change -- and leadership.
Fifteen trillion and deeper in debt. America could become Detroit -- this is crazy.
Tom Watkins is a former Michigan state school superintendent, mental health director and a recipient of the 2011 Detroit Regional Chamber Leadership Detroit Lifetime Achievement Award. He represented Detroit in reforming Wayne County as an elected charter commissioner in the 1980s. He can be reached at tdwatkins88@gmail.com.
Comments
hut hut
Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.
@Diagenes Because Republicans have openly and honestly stated they they're not going to raise taxes to have a balanced approach to reducing the budget, AS MOSTY AMERICANS WANT and they're doing it at the expense of the global economy, US economy and American jobs. Their main purpose in choosing this course of obstructionism is not to help the economy, but to defeat President Obama. At the same time, they're choosing this course of action, the economy is sinking... again. Additionally, Republicans seem to be obsessed with passing ultra conservative social issues (Flag, gay marriage, abortion, anti union, etc) instead of working on the economy. According to the Constitution, the three branches of government are equal in power and responsibility. Congress, under the thrall of conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers refuses to compromise to reduce the deficit because they know that if the economy stays in the tank, their chances of winning in 2012 are increased. By your account President Obama can't win. He gets blamed for being too hands on and using the bully pulpit and accused of having no ideas, then he gets blamed because Congress couldn't get their act together He gets blamed for either being too hands on and having his own 4 trillion reduction plan. He also gets blamed because he wants Congress to do their job. Sure Democrats wanted to beat Bush, but they didn't hold a faltering economy hostage or refused to legislate on budget issues in good faith and honesty.
Diagenes
Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 1:40 p.m.
The committee was tasked with cutting the growth of the federal budget. They could not agree to limit how much the budget was to increase. Dems would not agree to increase revenue through closing deductions and loopholes. They insist on increasing rates which does not always increase revenue. The Dems wanted to force a cut in defense spending. So by doing nothing a cut in defense will automatically occur. Also by doing nothing the Bush tax cuts expire, rasing taxes on everyone. An agreement takes Pres. Obama's campaign message off the table. He cannot run on his record so he has to run against a do nothing congress.
hut hut
Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.
Republicans had a choice to compromise and work together. Instead they chose the path of obstructionism and proposed social issue legislation on abortion, anti union, flag, gay marriage etc, instead of working to solve the budget crisis. PResident Obama proposed a $4 trillion reduction to the budget, far more than Congress.. But because his proposal allowed the Bush tax cuts to expire, Republicans refused to compromise, even after Democrats AND President Obama offered to reduce entitlements.
outdoor6709
Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 12:21 p.m.
And where is the news media in all of this? We have a $1.5 Trillion deficit every year and the media's calls the $1.2 trillion over 10 years a great start? AA news write a real store about the deficit. Include that in 2006 budget year with a republician congress we had a $160 billion deficit. When democrats took over in 2007 the deficit rose to $640 million and under President Obama the deficit has been $4+trillion in 3 years. All politicians love to spend money, we need to make it a priority to cut unnecessary spending from the budget. Canada was in a similiar mess sveral years ago. We could look at their solution. If you are interested how they changed from deficit spending to surplusses, the Liberals led the way. That gave the cost cutters cover in the press. Any libral in US ever want to cut any spending other that defense?
outdoor6709
Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 12:29 a.m.
One of the problems is no one is being is being honest about the how the buget process works. Under current law congress uses a budget process called baseline budgeting. <a href="http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&p=baseline+budgeting" rel='nofollow'>http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&p=baseline+budgeting</a> Under baseline budgeting spending goes up every year no matter what. The cuts we hear about are reductions in rate of growth. The $500 billion in cuts from the continuing resolution fight only had $38 billion in actual cuts. Also when you talk about lack of leadership, Senator Stabenhow is on the budget committee. In 2010 and 2011 no budget passed the U S senate. Call Senator Stabenhow's office and ask why there is no budget. So everyone complains about how bad the other party is, while everyone is at fault. Voters have the choice either pressure Senator Stabenhow to do her job and pass a budget with actual reductions in spending or vote for someone who will pass a budget. Our country is at risk, do something constructive or accept the loss of freedom a broke country will bring.
zip the cat
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 9:20 p.m.
This country is going down the sewer fast and furious. I'll show them what I think of there B/S come election time 50 million seniors strong and 50 million are at there wits end. We give more money away to other countrys than they are/were talking about. Vote em all out,there all a bunch of liars.
djm12652
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 8:57 p.m.
One does not often get deeply in debt by not earning enough but rather by spending too much....
Another Michael
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 7:20 p.m.
Assuming Mr. Watkins's numbers are accurate, the changes he suggests would save $260 million per year. When your budget deficit is four orders of magnitude greater, it's barely even a start. This isn't to say that it shouldn't be done. It's just difficult to be impressed by these sorts of savings when we need something closer to a philosophical overhaul. The problem is that Americans want more government than we're willing to pay for. We can't afford (A) our low tax rates, (B) our absurd levels of "defense" spending, and (C) our rapidly-growing entitlement commitments that rely on the surplus productivity of a dwindling workforce. One party wants to pretend away A, the other wants to laugh off concerns about C, and B is a great rhetorical target that everyone ignores when it's time to make real decisions. You don't fix a trillion-dollar problem without significant pain. That doesn't sound like a lot of fun, so let's just keep playing the blame game until it all blows up. On an unrelated note, Mr. Watkins may wish to have someone proofread his columns in the future.
Sparty
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.
The Congressional Super Committee failed because "Speaker" Grover Norquist wouldn't allow revenues to be part of a balanced approach to deficit reduction. The republican signers of his pledge were shaking in their boots but couldn't summon the will to do what's best for the country despite the best efforts of the Democrats to offer a variety of options for them to consider. By the way, despite the republican attempts to deflect blame and pin it on Democrats and the President, it was not a Presidential Committee. President Obama provided his input, called the co-chairs several times, and otherwise stayed out of their way so that they could do their "work".
hut hut
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.
Republicans want to sink the global economy in hopes of defeating President Obama. Senator Mitch McConnell said Republican's main goal was to defeat Obama. Not to create jobs, not to help the economy, not to reduce the deficit, not to do anything, except defeat President Obama. With people like that in charge of the Republican Party, there will never be any hope in reducing the deficit, creating jobs or improving the American economy.
hut hut
Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.
@Diagenes Because Republicans have openly and honestly stated they they're not going to raise taxes to have a balanced approach to reducing the budget, AS MOSTY AMERICANS WANT and they're doing it at the expense of the global economy, US economy and American jobs. Their main purpose in choosing this course of obstructionism is not to help the economy, but to defeat President Obama. At the same time, they're choosing this course of action, the economy is sinking... again. Additionally, Republicans seem to be obsessed with passing ultra conservative social issues (Flag, gay marriage, abortion, anti union, etc) instead of working on the economy. According to the Constitution, the three branches of government are equal in power and responsibility. Congress, under the thrall of conservative Republicans and Tea Partiers refuses to compromise to reduce the deficit because they know that if the economy stays in the tank, their chances of winning in 2012 are increased. By your account President Obama can't win. He gets blamed for being too hands on and using the bully pulpit and accused of having no ideas, then he gets blamed because Congress couldn't get their act together He gets blamed for either being too hands on and having his own 4 trillion reduction plan. He also gets blamed because he wants Congress to do their job. Sure Democrats wanted to beat Bush, but they didn't hold a faltering economy hostage or refused to legislate on budget issues in good faith and honesty.
Diagenes
Tue, Nov 22, 2011 : 1:14 p.m.
Rest assured no Democrat wanted to see G.W. Bush re-elected why is it wrong for the GOP to want Pres. Obama to lose in 2012? The difference is the Pres. Obama has abdicated his responsiblility to govern in favor of campaigning. When Sen. Kerry was asked how many times he spoke to the President about the Supercommittee he replied he talked to the whitehouse once a week. That is not leadership by the President.
Ignatz
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 4:14 p.m.
I whole heartedly agree with you. What I can't figure out is why so many people side with these anti-American tactics. Easily duped?
Top Cat
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 2:44 p.m.
This Super Committee was never going to succeed so we should not be surprised it failed. President Obama's own deficit reduction panel recommended lower marginal tax rates with a simpler tax code to promote growth. Our deficit problem is a spending problem as spending has increased 25% since 2008. Our President is too busy taking vacations, doing foreign junkets and blaming others to lead anything.
Sparty
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 6:50 p.m.
Foreign junkets as in hosting an Asia-Pacific Economic Conference that lead to $25 billion in new trade for American companies, creating 127,000 new American jobs in the USA? I'm all for those kind of "junkets". How many vacations clearing brush did GWB take? How about cowboy Reagan in California? GHWB in Kennebunkport? Besides, wasn't the Congressional Super Committee a .... Congressional Committee? I didn't realize it was to be led by the President? He did provide his input, called the co-chairs several times, and then stayed out of the way so they could do their "work".
hut hut
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 6:21 p.m.
Still waiting for that passionate discussion that annarbordotcom would like to be known for. But alas some folks just post their fact less talking point opinions without taking part in the discussion.
hut hut
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.
So Top Cat, what about Obama's plan to reduce the deficit $4 trillion in ways that are supported by a majority of Americans? Or because you have no defense or plan of your own that you prefer to distract and divert attention from the issue Rove style? So far your Tea Party compatriots and their Republican toadies have offered nothing but platitudes and obstruction. Democrats offered up entitlements but Republicans on the SUper Committee won't budge on taxes. Where's the compromise to get something done? Or do Republicans just want to sink the economy to defeat Obama?
hut hut
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 3 p.m.
It's too bad for everyone that some folks continue to repeat Republican, Fox News talking points and bald faced lies to distract and divert discussion from serious issues. Please provide everyone with a comparison showing how much vacation time President Obama has had vs his predecessor. I don't think anyone will be surprised that Bush took more days off than any president in modern history and he presided over two (unnecessary and unpaid for) wars while presiding over an economy that created the least number of job of any president in modern history in his failed 8 year reign.
David Briegel
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.
nonsense! you would prefer he was clearing brush?
David Briegel
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
Actually, if you want to see the conservative vision for America, Somalia is a much better example than Detroit. NO evil big government there!
David Briegel
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.
They can't say no to Grover and Grover won't tell where he get's his contributions. The secret govt of those noble conservatives.
trapper
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.
The "Billion here...." quote is from Everett Dirksen, a distinguished former US senator of Illinois. Eric is somebody else.
Steve Pepple
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 2:31 p.m.
The reference has been corrected. Thanks for pointing it out.
hut hut
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.
President Obama offered a $4 TRILLION to reduce the deficit. It included cuts to defense and entitlements, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and additional new taxes. It would have reduced the deficit far more than what the Super Committee is attempting and failing to do. From Fox News <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/19/obama-to-present-balanced-plan-to-tackle-deficit/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/19/obama-to-present-balanced-plan-to-tackle-deficit/</a> The majority of Americans favor a mix of both budget cuts and new taxes. President Obama's plan was rejected by obstructionist Republicans because they're more interested in defeating him at the polls and rewarding their ultra wealthy benefactors than they are in reducing the deficit and helping the nation recover from the Great Recession. President Obama offered serious leadership. Republicans offed nothing but obstruction for political purposes.
David Briegel
Mon, Nov 21, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
The party of NO and Grover!