Op Ed: U.S. National Debt $9 Trillion and Rising, Forcing Action NOW

(BEND, Ore.) - Painful choice remains unmistakably, relentlessly, unavoidably our greatest democratic danger NOW --with OR without continuance of our wasting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

National fiscal disaster faces us from every part of ANY rational, reasonable survey of the situation --known for decades and very carefully covered-up, with no visible conscience-pangs whatsoever-- while consciously avoided by every thinking, manipulating politician.

Far too few citizens --even those paying attention -- yet realize the overwhelming catastrophe awaiting our fiscal futures. Far too few understand the crucial difference between the annual-budget deficit” and the national debt. Nor do they know --much less understand why-- the U.S. national yearly budget has been in deficit for THIRTY-ONE of the past THIRTY-FIVE years.

Yet, clearly on public record --albeit carefully non-reported in depth and excruciating detail by the MainStreamMedia--is the frightening fact that we HAD a hefty 'budget surplus' when the Bush cabal arrived at power in Washingon: Clinton reported a surplus of $559 billion at the end of his presidency, based on Congressional accounting rules. (Wikipedia)

Today, lawmakers took to the Senate floor and blasted President Bush’s wasteful spending. To fully illustrate the impact, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), brought up a chart showing the budget plans of President Clinton versus the budget formulated by Bush. He concluded that by squandering Clinton’s government surplus, "Bush has cost the country $7.7 trillion". (Internet video-clip 3/14/08))

There are far too many millions of our fellow Americans blissfully unaware of what that difference between the yearly national budget and the overwhelming national debt IS in ALL truth; and why many canny or crafty politicians --aided and abetted by the MSM-- carefully keep so many Americans in such an obviously dangerous and deceitful MIS-or-UN-informed state.

Each year, Congress and the Executive work out what they will spend that fiscal year --and where the money will come from. That’s the national budget. Each year, for thirty-ONE out of thirty-FIVE since 1970, that fiscal plan has come down to “deficit --defying and denying a balanced budget. So the Treasury borrows the missing monies, from wherever it can be found --OFTEN FROM FOREIGN SOURCES.

For decades Treasury bonds, covering that debt, have been the favorite haven for careful and cautious investors around the world; but that situation, too, is now under desperate change as our U.S. dollar is weakened and becoming dangerously anemic due to free trade, globalization and other totally inexorable economic and business trends.

It is firmly in the public record that deregulation, privatization and globalization built on erroneous free trade concepts, were all initiated in the Reagan-Bush I era, now seen as a preliminary-run for the Bush II cabal-and-debacle clearly responsible for our looming fiscal catastrophes.

WE pay horrendous interest totals for those borrowed dollars, adding inexorably to the billions already accumulated over those thirty-five years. THAT’S the national debt --now at the resounding, remarkable, revolting and frightening total of NINE TRILLION DOLLARS.

Every U.S. citizen deserves to be fully informed about ANY such inescapably deep and desperate personal concern. It’s a simple matter of ethical and moral decision to provide such understandings to all. That deep, desperate personal concern already threatens each of us --AND will present our puzzled, protesting progeny soon with a truly unsustainable situation-- as the Boomer Generation floods every possible facility and agency for its inevitable turn at Social Security AND Medicare AND Medicaid, too --EIGHTY MILLION-deep!

Demonstrably, we face a demographic disaster. This depressive development is already here --and grows worse with every demeaned, devalued dollar we charge off against the multiplying true national debt. Adding to the horrendous hurt arriving thus is the inescapable fact of a new wave of seriously disabled younger war vets -- from our two-at-a-time wasting wars !-- “already demanding expanded, ever-more costly specialized medical and mental care.

BOTH Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are pay as you go programs, designed to fund benefits for participants with incoming taxes taken right off the paycheck for workers now actively producing in whatever way. Both use a trust fund(!) to catch any currently-surplus dollars produced by workers today but not demanded for immediate support of those who are entitled because they, in turn, already paid-in their own FICA-tax dollars-deducted from their active-working/days paychecks.

BUT those dollars do NOT hide away in isolation, in a Treasury vault somewheres, until needed, as the term “trust fund” so deceitfully designates. Every damned dollar is desperately, rapidly, exchanged for piles of paper termed Treasury bonds, representing only a promise to pay --even if backed by the full-force and future responsibility of the U.S. Treasury.

Where once we had more than 40 workers for each and every SS-recipient, now we are already down to TWO, still producing payroll-deducted dollars to do the job; with still-fewer still-active workers set to continue this pay as you go pattern in future years.

Noted as perhaps once the world’s best-possible credit-risk, with the entire U.S. national-assets assurance as foundation and resoundingly full-confidence guarantee, these Treasury bonds still demand cash-in-hand for honest redemption; perhaps sooner rather than later given the overwhelming massive program manipulation now unavoidable as The Boomer Generation arrives, hands-out and demanding their full entitlement.

SO, somehow, government must now provide whatever it takes to make good on those massively-promised entitlements; for millions of solid citizens who paid-in their part, over the years of their own active employment. Most Americans agree they have every right to receive from the nation what they were promised --and for which they have already paid their share --while supporting other elderly Americans already achieving that protected state guaranteed by this proven-practical program, among the strongest-supported in U.S. history.

Comptroller General David Walker, our nation’s chief accountant, states that our current financial path is "unsustainable".

He should know --and so should all U.S. fiscal and other agency officials-- surely up and surely including President Bush and Vice President Cheney, well before their White House arrival, on the basis of wellknown and oft-considered facts “on the record” in Congressional hearings starting in the Reagan era.

As Americans learn more about their true financial situation --and their threatening fiscal-future-- you can confidently expect some solid action via people power.

For those lackadaisical or otherwise-occupied (with hands-out for corporate campaign contributions) in our Congress, you can expect some devastating and even-seat/removal changes-soon, too.

Our Founders provided us with solid and workable process for cleaning out and clearing up precisely this kind of political sabotage of our democracy, no matter the reasons-why it occurs. Deliberate denial and deceitful declaration about essential program and fiscal needs should, surely, classify as impeachable offenses.

We should put that process into full-and-rapid motion NOW, while we can still do so, to procure our own best self-protection for these essential programs by initiation of the complex, demanding and difficult choices we MUST now MAKE.

At the height of the American Revolution Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Given the state of current events around the world, these words are just as true today.

What are YOU doing about this intentional, continuing, deeply-documented, desperately-dangerous, democracy-damaging denial of the detailed examination-and-dialog surely now demanded of us by the long-known, rapidly-approaching demise of these decent, effective, well worthwhile, and surely essential programs providing longterm care and support for our elderly citizens?

SOME day --all TOO soon !!-- the support YOU save NOW may become PERSONAL In Deed, just when it is just what YOU Need.

------------------------------------------------------
Reader’s Note:
Quotes are combined, shortened, summarized; verbatim and source citations available on request to editor with ID. More than 150 pages of Internet-source citations and some 40 other documenting references were consulted in preparation of this Op Ed --not listed here for space reasons. All sources used are noted-in-full here and available on request to editor with ID.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

JM March 20, 2008 10:05 am (Pacific time)

Frugal have you looked at recent cost projections for this war and related costs? Depending on which part of the ideological spectrum the economists come from, the projected costs vary quite widely. That's why I prefer to simply go look and see what money has been allocated by congress on a yearly basis, then you have objective numbers to work with. Otherwise all you get from these other so-called experts is nothing more than politically biased theories, usually made to generate unneccesary concern. As Ted Kennedy recently stated "Facts can be inconvenient." That is so ironic.

Frugal March 19, 2008 8:29 am (Pacific time)

I looked up the numbers that JM provided and did my own calculations. I came up with some different percentage numbers as per JM's example but they were quite negligible. I would suggest to Henry that these numbers speak for themselves and they simply provide government-sourced data that mitigates the need to write an OP ED. The numbers speak for themselves, and brevity is less confusing in fiscal matters. I am concerned about how expensive this war is, but to come up to speed a lot of investment on new equipment (and RandD) was required. We won't know for many years how much it will cost the Veterans Administration to treat our war veterans, but those with psychological problems like PTSD are being reached out to right away, and it's their choice if they use these services. In past wars this was not done, so their problems festered, so in that regard it would not be accurate to say the financial impact of current veterans will be as high as previous veterans. We have a horrible war to deal with, and complacency is our biggest enemy because no doubt the men and women who are protecting us internally appear to have been successful, no major attacks. I certainly feel that it is essential that the public receives accurate information about all elements of not just this war in human costs, but also that accurate fiscal costs are provided, so thanks JM for your below example. It's always much better to get different sides so one can make their own decision what to believe, or better yet, go out and do their own individual research! The U.S. Department of Commerce(Bureau of Economic Analysis) was my source for verifying GNP and other budget related matters.

JM March 18, 2008 11:13 am (Pacific time)

A brief example:In 2004 the government took in nearly 1.9 trillion dollars. Their outlay to the Department of Defense was approximately 455 billion dollars (23.9% of total tax income). In 2005 we took in nearly 2.2 trillion dollars and sent the Departmant of Defense 495 billion (22.5% of total tax income). The GNP for 2004 was 11.7 trillion and in 2005 the GNP was approximately 12.5 trillion. Actually the GNP has shown pretty steady growth since 2000. My point is that the percentage of DOD spending, though high (we are in a war footing), it's percentage of the GNP is something that merits a closer examination, as do those future costs that we will have with the Veterans Administration. Remember, we have fixed costs to maintain our military, something we must maintain. So what is the percentage of say the 2005 DOD outlay compared to the GNP? Approximately "3.6%". The source for the above is the U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

Henry Ruark March 18, 2008 10:22 am (Pacific time)

JM et al: Key phase from yours proves my point re "objectivity" always questionable no matter who-from: "Then explore the other hidden costs from that point." That surely sets up crucial choice, thus forcing crucial attention to who makes that choice, under what conditions, from what sources, for what purposes, and to whom addressed for any action when completed. How else can this be done ? If you have any solid process in mind, please cite details and furnish "see with own eyes" reference for us who continue to doubt what YOU mean by "objectivity", and HOW you would apply it as process --naturally, "objectively". If helpful to you, for purposes of this dialog, can and will send some highly useful and authoritative references for "see with own eyes" on whole group-process and dialog/discussion/debate communications research, some of which I was privileged to participate in doing and then reporting. Honest, good faith offer; take me up on it if you really seek solid, sharing, open dialog here. OR, again, do your own Op Ed and make your own points in depth, detail and honest documentation, shared with all for their own evaluation. We might even get participation from the Comptroller General, whose decision and judgment it is that our current course is "unsustainable" --which is at the root of your reference to this statistical usage of the GNP, flawed as it surely is.

Henry Ruark March 18, 2008 10:09 am (Pacific time)

JM et al: "Objectivity", precisely like "costs", demands close and penetrating definition. Whomever defines it then shapes the discussion; inevitably so, since by definition the meaning applied is chosen by the definer. Which is why "objectivity" long ago became a laughing label within the journalistic profession --forcing the long-relished conservative pattern of "one this hand, and on that hand", leading to more obfuscation and seduction than reasonable and rational and cooperative dialog. So much for "objective" comparison; the question still remains "WHY do this, and WHAT choic SHOULD we make, for its impacts THERE or AT HOME, NOW" That is the truly bloody question, as the NATION reference surely documents for anyone truly willing to "be objective", within the limits for any one person, shaped by own experience and own cogitation, if any.

JM March 18, 2008 8:48 am (Pacific time)

Let me clarify for those of you who digress into some other topics. Simply take the amount of money that congress has allocated to the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration, then compare those expenses with the yearly GNP those expenses come from. What percentage of the GNP are related war costs? Seems like a reasonable place to start if one is concerned about finacial matters. Then explore the other hidden costs from that point. Someone see a more objective way to do this, unless one does not want an objective frame of reference?

Henry Ruark March 18, 2008 8:20 am (Pacific time)

JM et al: Your process depends on access to absolutely reliable numbers --not only hard to get from ANY source, but also very vulnerable to distortion and perversion for malign personal and political purposes. As in Bush NYork address, well dissected here with full illumination from multiple other authoritative sources. Re "comparison" with our GNP, that is primarily and inescapably meaningless even if done with full definition of cost components, as already detailed in previous comments. Even if it did establish possibilities of continuance, real choice is still whether or not we, as a people and a nation, wish to spend even more blood-and-treasure on this chimerical political-purpose empire-building adventure, forced upon us by now-proven distortion/perversion of supposedly honest national "intelligence". What IS unmistakable, and impossible to cover up any further, and iremediable no matter what is now attempted, and irrational if we do not pay full attention NOW; and also fully "unsustainable", as has now been absolutely established by many sources, including the Comptroller General in Congressional testimony --restating his continuous information during his entire NINE YEARS in office. What more does one need to do to win full examination and cogitation from any reasonable and rational citizen ?? IF you have sources for real factual information otherwise, why not share them here and now for full "see with own eyes" examination, to document any possible further dialog ? OR --if all/else fails-- YOU, too, can do own Op Ed, complete with competent references and full "see with own eyes" examination by any others.

JM March 18, 2008 7:33 am (Pacific time)

I heard "if you want to find out what is going on down the road, talk to those with the bloodiest feet." Seems it is nearly impossible to predict next months weather, so projecting economic costs must also be fraught with many variables that are subject to change. I agree though, that by looking at what has been spent so far on a yearly level in conjunction with that year's GNP and go up to each following year at least you can get a percentage of what it has been so far. Of course each year the congress votes their war budget, so maybe they have more information than those who project costs based on incomplete information? Seems like a good exercise for what has been spent to date, then you can start exploring those other costs that have yet to be determined.

Spock March 17, 2008 6:07 pm (Pacific time)

From what I take from your comments Henry Ruark is that in purely dollar amounts, making a cost comparison is not something you would prefer to explore for the readers on this article? Of course we all are concerned with the human suffering costs, but it also serves a very valuable purpose for the reader to compare current and projected war costs with current and projected GDP. These would be imperfect numbers, but then so are most projections and that is the primary reason I have even brought up this comparison matter. It was not to be offensive, but illuminating.

Henry Clay Ruark March 17, 2008 7:50 am (Pacific time)

To all: David Broder reports from D.C. today: This nation is courting disaster by not paying its bills. By David Broder March 17, 2008 WASHINGTON — It was sheer coincidence that David M. Walker spent his last day Wednesday as comptroller general of the United States at the same time that the House and Senate were beginning to debate their budget resolutions for next year. As the head of the Government Accountability Office, the auditing arm of Congress, Walker has been perhaps the most outspoken official in Washington warning of the fiscal train wreck that awaits this country unless it mends its ways. The budget resolutions approved last week both envisage an increase in the deficit next year. The Senate predicts $366 billion, the House $340 billion. Meanwhile, over the next five years, independent estimates are that the national debt, already $9 trillion, will grow by $2 trillion more. Almost half the government debt owed to banks or individuals is held by foreign creditors, notably China, Japan and the OPEC nations, up from 13 percent five years ago. Both resolutions forecast a balanced budget in 2012, but they use the same dubiously optimistic assumptions President Bush employed to make the same claim for his tax-and-spending proposal. Once again, the hard choices are being pushed off to some hazy future. For much of his nine years as comptroller general, and with increasing urgency in recent times, Walker has been warning policymakers in Washington and audiences around the country that this nation is courting disaster by not paying its bills. ========== See current Op Ed above for further details, nicely now subtantiated by Broder report.

Henry Clay Ruark March 17, 2008 4:06 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Prefer "the good word" re dergulation from a recognized Oregon source ? Here it is: "The Federal Reserve has the authority to regulate and to stop bad lending practices but refused to do so under Chairman Alan Greenspan. He recognized the potential problems of sub-prime mortgages and predatory lending but shrugged off any potential regulation by assuming the lenders would be prudent. The resulting mortgage crisis is now dragging the economy down with it. As the government turns to cash bailouts and tepid regulatory response, even Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged regulatory failure was a co-conspirator in the crisis. I know as well as anyone that regulation can't solve everything and shouldn't try to do so. It can even make a situation worse if overdone. But we've seen what can happen if warning signs are ignored and an ideology of less regulation trumps effective pre-emptive action or corrective response. It seems regulation is always trying to catch up to the latest financial scandal or economic crisis that could have been avoided, or at least mitigated, if we hadn't deferred to the gospel of less regulation in the first place." Ron Eachus of Salem is a former legislator and a former chairman of the Oregon Public Utility Commission. This is from his weekly colum in the S-J --and, yes, one learns from wherever the wisdom flows these days.

Henry Clay Ruark March 17, 2008 3:58 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Mine to Spock speaks of comparison of war costs vs the U.S. GDP, for what abstruse purpose-sought entirely unclear, purposely intended as content analysis indicates. To clarify: Include the extremely heavy costs we now will surely suffer from the many thousands of younger vets seeking, already, costly care and treatment for mental and stress-related injuries ? Do we confine ourselves only to bread, butter, bullets for uniformed personnel ? If so, why ? How assess and include the overwhelming costs of many mercenary "contractors", at average daily/pay of $1,000--and up ? Who assesses and ponies up huge piles of pelf to pay for permanent remedy vs the huge damages we've incurred in Iraq for facilities destroyed ? What allowance is included in this war-costs figure, ostensibly for comparison vs U.S. GNB, for million-and-more Iraq fatalities ? Do we pay at all ? On what basis ? To whom and in dollars or their money? Obviously this is complex and demanding of confrontation and cooperation to come to any possible meaningful resolution, but that was never intended by Spock et al in any case...judge for yourself, with ease of obtaining GNP if you really wanted to...took me twenty seconds, with Google handing me 20-item pagefull of basic information. So, O Spock, hope you enjoy the fumes you created... and why don't you just head on out to Mars, with all the others who deserve to end up there ?? It IS the warlike planet, I do understand.

Henry Clay Ruark March 17, 2008 3:15 pm (Pacific time)

Spock: Guess your planetary drive must be slipping, or gaseous, or something... IF you reall want numbers, you've been instructed how to find them, and warned on any attempt to interpret here with little room...and, in your case, obviously needed understandings...as to what they might mean. NO NEED for comparison; and against what would you set them up ? The monthly, or annual, or five-year, or decade, costs in Iraq ? To do so you must then, absolutely, define what you are including in costs, so compared, right ? That is, if you acting in good faith seeking true comparison; if only palaver to confuse and compound misunderstandings here, you seek only to compare, without any definitions to guide what you setting side-by-side. SO check out the gaseous leak from the drive, Sir Spock, and be careful not to breath in your own fumes...

Spock March 17, 2008 2:51 pm (Pacific time)

Does anyone out there know what our GDP is? How can you compare anything unless you have the numbers?

Henry Clay Ruark March 17, 2008 2:00 pm (Pacific time)

Spock et al: Re GDP, interpretation truly difficult and complex. Google search turns up latest numbers but data-table won't transfer clearly here, so try Google or Wikipedia, so you have just what you seek. If you at real computer, that's no problem. IF you cannot obtain will summarize and report, but that really requires more space for definitive work than we have here. Simple-number means little without surround and specific definition --which is why I sought source from Kevin, since that would force definition-used for meaningful application here. Will seek to find time for serious interpretation and explanation, perhaps in next Op Ed. Appreciate your query; now explain Spock interplanatery drive for us, please ??

Henry Ruark March 17, 2008 1:42 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Want another little jolt re Bush policies, and the consequences ? Here it is: "Recently, the Wall Street Journal broke down the relationship between the dollar and oil and revealed the ugly truth; that consumers are getting gouged at the pump because of Bush's policies not Saudi greed: “Since 2001 the dollar price of oil and gold have run almost in tandem. The price of gold has risen 240% since 2001, while the price of oil has risen 270%. That means that if the dollar had remained “as good as gold” since 2001, oil today would be selling at about $30 a barrel, not $100. Gold has traditionally been a rough proxy for the price level, so the decline of the dollar against gold and oil suggests a US monetary that is supplying too many dollars”.” (“Oil and the Dollar” Wall Street Journal) "There it is in black and white. Bush's dollar policy has taken us where Bin Laden never could; the edge of ruin. The consumer is getting clobbered, the country is slipping into recession, and the greenback is hanging by a thread. Thanks, George." (From "The Dollar, Paulson, and Carlyle Capital": www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9542.htm "See with own eyes" for more intriguing information.

Spock March 17, 2008 12:54 pm (Pacific time)

Henry Ruark do you know what the current GDP is? That would go a long ways to help us compare what the war costs as compared to the overall economy. Thanks

Henry Clay Ruark March 17, 2008 8:08 am (Pacific time)

To all: Want more, from national source, on top of Broder's report ? Here it is, with strong impact on Oregon surely well implied, too: As the Economy Falters, So Do State Budgets By JENNIFER STEINHAUER Programs for the elderly are being slashed in Maine. Government jobs are being eliminated in New Jersey. Prison construction has been put off in Virginia. Some schools in California will end their music programs. About half of the state legislatures nationwide are scrambling to plug gaps in their budgets, shot through by rapid declines in corporate and sales tax revenue, distressed housing markets and a national economy on the verge of a recession. Many states are reporting their largest budget shortfalls since the recessions of 2001 and 1991-2. In some states where tax increases are generally anathema, including Maryland and Kentucky, governors are looking to raise some levies. -------- "Unsustainable" begins to make much more common sense, given the indisputable facts re Bush-cabal economic policies and "preemptive"-war costs also unsustainable. WHEN will we begin the truly Constitutional process we have inherited from the Founders ??

Henry Ruark March 17, 2008 7:08 am (Pacific time)

To all: We sought documentation from Kevin M. re his obviously distorted reference to GDP. What we also should ask for is documentation of his stated assumption that the Iraq War will continue through 2015, but without any attribution. Seven more years of blood and bullets cannot but double the reliable estimates of more than SEVEN BILLIONS in fullly documented war costs so far... by Nobel-winning economist Stiglitz, no less !! One cannot discuss GDP OR GNP in short-space as here without creating even more misunderstandings than now exist. That's one reason such as K.M. resort to obvious distortion, knowing its short-term affect on the unknowledgeable in our readership; also why we offer any reader opportunity for his own Op Ed detailing --and then documenting-- his own views. The usage here is typical of neocon dialog strategy --as the final statement shows, clearly charging either sloppy or incompetent handling of vital numbers, without the slightest proof or pattern. We all should resent and resist any such ongoing attack on open, honest, democratic dialog in our free press, whose true American values S-N very clearly demonstrates. K.M. you still there ? IF so, speak up and document your stuff, or lose what little credibility you may have had.

Henry Ruark March 16, 2008 3:02 pm (Pacific time)

Friend Kevin: Please document your odd arithmetic re 1% of GDP, per OBM. Will appreciate link to your source for "See with own eyes". Serious conflict with mine here, per solid new book from Public Agenda Online, 314 pp., which I have read (twice) and annotated in depth and detail. OR you might wish to do own Op Ed, detailing whole picture to offset facts, figures and informed opinion in my Op Ed. Feel welcome, but bring your documentation in depth, and detail it in what you write for us, again for "see with own eyes" and personal check. That's S-N's open, honest, democratic dialog, contrasting strongly with propaganda and distorted, sometime irrelevant politicized statement as offered.

T March 16, 2008 12:12 pm (Pacific time)

I don't understand where the $19 billion comes from. Is this what we're adding to the national debt per day?

Kevin March 16, 2008 12:08 pm (Pacific time)

I noticed last week that on a senate vote to end earmarks only 29 voted for it. Just six were democrats, and of course Sen.'s Clinton and Obama voted in the affirmative. So maybe the real problem is not the whitehouse but the legislative branch, after all they control the purse strings. As far as social security, having a private investment fund seems like one way of approaching it, and that would be on a volunteer basis. As far as the trillions that are spent in the "wasting" war, have you taken the time to run the numbers up to around 2015, if you do, then you will see that at the very most it would count as approximately 1.5% of the GDP, but more likely less than 1% as per the Office of Budget Management. Also prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq there were already around 65,000 military in the Iraq area of operations. There are certain fixed military costs, but the cost of lives is the most regrettable cost, but one needs to be objective when crunching numbers and when you deal in projecting costs, well that's alright, but it should be pointed out that methodologies used can sometimes be quite flawed.

[Return to Top]