Government has been tallying up large deficits and debts for the past forty years. In an attempt to alleviate these deficits the Federal Government borrows money from foreign countries but debts on top of the already large deficits piled up. Per dollar, the most is spent on National Defense with Social Security not far behind. And defense spending increased after the September 11 attacks to pay for increased homeland security and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Such things as taxes (including increased taxes, tax cuts, and the Alternative Minimum Tax) and Earmarks have been used to try to turn the debts and deficits around. The problem with increased taxes is that the American public will complain. The problem with tax cuts is that the government must get the money to pay off the debt from another source, one they may not have. The problem with Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is that the initial reason it was implemented (to ensure that wealthy Americans pay their fair share of taxes) is now extinct. Between inflation and revised deductions the AMT now targets middle-class Americans more than the wealthy. Earmarks have also become a problem lately with Congressmen annonymously slipping a provision into a bill at the last second, costing the American people an annual sixty four billion. Another attempt to clean up the national debt has resulted in a great debate: a "paygo" budgeting measure that was passed in 2007. Some see this as a positive entity, insisting that this system helps keep the spending in line, and eliminates the collection of unpaid taxes. Others say that unnecessary spending will not stop, rather "paygo" will bring about tax hikes to pay for these new programs.
In my opinion the paygo system, if implemented correctly, would be a solid way to decrease superfluous spending and would at least stop the deficit from growing futher if not turn it around. By making sure that an increase of spending in one area would decrease spending in another, the overall budget would not fluctuate much. And emergency money, while it would have to be taken from other areas, would at least be available. Paygo was used from 1991 to 2002, when the legistlation lapsed and was not reenacted. Partly due to the paygo system, the federal budget was balanced and in 1998 a surplus was visible for the first time in years. The Brookings Institution details the specifics of paygo.
In my opinion the paygo system, if implemented correctly, would be a solid way to decrease superfluous spending and would at least stop the deficit from growing futher if not turn it around. By making sure that an increase of spending in one area would decrease spending in another, the overall budget would not fluctuate much. And emergency money, while it would have to be taken from other areas, would at least be available. Paygo was used from 1991 to 2002, when the legistlation lapsed and was not reenacted. Partly due to the paygo system, the federal budget was balanced and in 1998 a surplus was visible for the first time in years. The Brookings Institution details the specifics of paygo.
See Also: Issue #1
No comments:
Post a Comment