Campaign Video 18, And the Fight Against National Debt






(this website is not managed by Linda McMahon)


The fiscal situation of the United States has become dire, and perhaps the keenest evidence of this is a small subsection on “treasurydirect.gov”, an informational website for general citizens regarding America’s public debt. The subsection offers payment information if a private citizen would like to contribute to paying off the national debt. Not that MasterCard is not a successful business, I just do not forsee them allowing any person to charge $59,000 to their account in one go. (This is each American’s slice of the pie).

It is possible that allowing anyone to make even a small contribution is just an effort to make conscientious people feel better about not having more control over a runaway situation, but seeking private “donations” amounts to nothing more than false pretenses when Democrats are not willing to cut the spending that they, as lawmakers are responsible for.

Last year, psychological warfare lit up Capitol Hill when the U.S. Treasury outspent its debt limit only three months into the year. Rob Garver with The Fiscal Times describes how time and time again, leaders leave the tap on, let the cash flow, use up prepared rations and then argue that the country will wither unless the debt ceiling is raised so their pockets and projects can continue to receive the necessary funding to continue in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

While economists around the world agree that less debt is generally better than more debt in most cases, new arguments arise about the different types of debt any given government holds, and the possible benefits that can come from endlessly channeling money in certain directions. Looking at it this way requires a bit of a philosophical approach, but it does make sense to some degree. The current way the government looks at debt is according to what expenditures match the budget and which ones do not and require excess spending, money that we cannot get back. But if spending and investing on a federal scale was evaluated in terms of long-term benefits (money to improving schools for example, is not wasted, and creates a much healthier economy later), lawmakers could better understand what necessary spending truly means.

So, if budget planners on both sides take a Business 101 class, they might better understand that neither rationalization nor scare tactics are effective means of fixing Washington. Obviously, rationalization is the far more dangerous and unscrupulous of the two, and a Left-wing favorite. When it is evaluated that certain aspect of government interference in the private sector will not help either with long-term payoffs that will come back to build the economy, or if the funding cause could actually be handled privately, then that tap should be stopped, slowing the growth of debt and the strain on America.