John Mauldin said the “world is coming to the end of a 50-year debt supercycle and the austerity required to put us back on solid financial footing will hammer ordinary Americans.”
Who’s John Mauldin? He earns a living as a financial analyst and is author of a book titled: “ENDGAME: The end of the 50-year debt cycle and how it changes everything.”
Actually, Mr. Mauldin is only commenting on the obvious — in a very loud tone of voice.
Tax increases are necessary. Not just on the rich, but on everybody. Spending on health care by Medicare and Medicaid must be reduced. Nothing can be spared. Slash spending on education and the military, too, he says, and then repeats himself: The middle class will bear the brunt of the impact.
Mr. Mauldin, like some candidates for president who come to mind, specializes in extreme statements.
Of course trillion dollar deficits must stop. Of course spending must be reduced. Of course taxes must be increased across the board. Of course the middle class will bear part of the burden. Think for a moment: Who do you know personally who pays taxes and isn’t in the middle class? Truth is, America and every other advanced nation in the world are all middle class countries with small segments of the poor and the rich at each end.
Balanced budgets require taxes on the 85 percent of the population in the middle class because that’s where the money is.
Democrats who think U.S. budget problems can be solved by spending more on social services and making up for it with higher taxes on the rich can’t do math.
Republicans who think bud-gets can be balanced by slashing spending on health care and giving more tax breaks to the wealthy not only are math challenged but haven’t paid any attention to the last 20 years of the nation’s economic experience.
OF COURSE, the Democrats and Republicans who continue to make their patented partisan arguments can do math. But they are counting votes, not dollars.
Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP’s deficit hawk, would savage Medicare to generate trillions in budget savings — but his cuts wouldn’t affect anyone above the age of 55. Get it? He’s counting on support from today’s seniors for his budget cuts because they won’t be affected and would be glad to let the next generation pick up the tab. Lousy public policy; good politics? We’ll see.
Democrats aren’t much more honest. They shy away from cost controls on the health care industry and continue to argue that taxing the rich will close the budget gap even though taxing Mr. and Mrs. Gotrocks at any politically acceptable rate wouldn’t come close to doing the job. Their party has also been far too timid on Social Security reform for fear of losing votes from seniors.
The best hope the country has is that the political cost of letting things slide will rise above the cost of effective change. That tipping point is drawing nearer.
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
