The national debt would increase, perhaps dramatically, under the tax and spending plans of the leading Republican presidential candidates, according to an independent budget watchdog group.
Leading the way with the most expensive plan is former House speaker Newt Gingrich, followed by former Pennsylvania sennator Rick Santorum and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, says the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Only Rep. Ron Paul of Texas would keep the national debt in check as a percentage of the economy, the group found, because he has proposed by far the largest spending cuts.
The one candidate who is the most serious about the national debt is the one given the least chance of winning. That says something not only about the current political climate but also more than I'd like to admit about the electorate.
Comments
I think Paul can't win because his seriousness about the budget is the only good reason to support him. Very few voters, or the right or left, want to lose government services and entitlements. Furthermore, Paul is the only candidate, including Obama, who is realistic about the military. We can't afford to have a vastly bigger military than the rest of the world's countries combined. I suspect very few Republicans would support Paul if they understood that a lot of his proposed savings come from the Pentagon's budget. And how many Republicans (besides you) are comfortable with legalized drugs and prostitution? Those things don't bother me, but I'm a liberal who will probably vote for Obama.
The US Citizen is addicted to several very large and unfunded programs. In fact most of these large programs had not blue print for how they would work. Taking it to the next step, none of these programs attempted to quantify the cost or revenue these programs would consume or there unintended consequences on other programs.
The last general budget surplus was in 1957. For 55 years the US voter has repeatedly voted for idiots who did not care about budget. In the 70's I remember politicians across all parties stating that 2% GDP deficits were managable and good for the economy. The fact is there is no deficit no matter how small a percentage of GDP that is good.
One way to look at is is drowning. First you sink at 2% of your body height in water. Not too bad the first increment but by the time you get under your head, you begin to panic. Not to worry, you have slowed your decent to just 1% of body height. Sorry, but simple math is just that. The more debt you have, the larger the cost per any given years income it becomes. It may be just 1 or 2%, but in 100 years it most of the income.