Federal Spending and Deficits
 An Alternative Legacy
​is Offered You
  
            When William Clay first came to Congress in 1968, the federal deficit stood at 348 Billion Dollars and the Gross Domestic Product of the nation was 4.696 Trillion Dollars.  The debt owed by the people of the United States of America was 7.4106% of the total economic output of the people of the United States of America.  In the past eight years, we have not had an annual budget deficit less than the total accumulated debt of the nation forty-eight years ago.  The current accumulated debt of the people of the United States of America is roughly 19 Trillion Dollars while our GDP is roughly 17.5 Trillion Dollars.  Accumulated debt is 108.5714% of total economic output.
            Certainly the Clays are not solely responsible for the burgeoning debt, but they have never been deficit hawks or fiscal conservatives.  They claim a progressivism that will lift the people out of poverty and despair.  While their intentions are honorable, we all know where the road of good intentions leads.  It is time to manage our affairs wisely so that OUR families can secure liberty for the generations yet to come.
            By the above chart, we can see hope on the horizon: the annual debt may soon be less than the total accumulated debt of the first nine score years of the republic.  We can also see that during the Clay family years in power, our nation lived within its means in fully one-twelfth of that time: four years.  A family which carries a debt load of 7.5% of its total income will struggle to make ends meet when you add taxes, shelter, food, clothing, transportation, education, travel, relaxation, entertainment, charitable donations and "other" to the mix.  I presume that the readers can do the math on a family whose debt exceeds their income.  Can you say bankruptcy or Greece or Puerto Rico or Illinois or Detroit?  And yet the Democrats tread blithely along promising more and more "free" stuff.
            Let us assume that Budweiser decided to give everyone free beer for a year.  Compare this, if you will, to the socialist promise of a free college education for everyone.  First, what percentage of the population is interested or needs either one?  As to beer, I would estimate at most 40% of the population would be interested in the offer (beer, believe it or not, has deleterious side effects, particularly when over consumed).  College education is not for everyone, either.  While college is touted as the panacea for the ills of economic imbalance, the vast majority of students begin to lose interest in further education about the time they enter the eighth grade: they want a job so they can go buy stuff without having to ask Mom and Dad!
            But still, Budweiser decides to just give all of its products away everywhere over the world for a period of one year.  How many people will Budweiser employ at the end of the year?  Is this materially different from the Democrats' plan to soak the rich to pay for all these "free" goodies?  Oddly, they must not be free if someone else has to pay for them, but let us just assume that the targeted "rich" (and you can substitute any historical group that was targeted by government for that term, e.g., Jew, Negro, immigrant) have a total of 4 Trillion Dollars.  Take it all away from them, regardless if all or most of it was lawfully acquired (cf., the Kennedys, John Hancock), and you would still have a debt of 15 Trillion Dollars, which would be 85.7412% of GDP.
            So, in our infinite wisdom, we have succeeded in taking away all the property from the nation's primary employers (the taxes they pay help support the behemoth that is government, our largest employer by class), and now we all get the benefits that Budweiser would get from its "free-for-all," the same expenses of living but no income to pay for them for a period of one year.  I hope someone can explain to me the fairness of this path.  The Democrats tell us to ignore Margaret Thatcher ("The only problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people's money.") and trust their elite wisdom.  Their desire for the utopian states of Europe is belied by the appearance of the mass populace of those countries where the ordinary citizen worries about the government's ability to pay today for all the rich promises of politicians of the past. 
            The major difference in our example is that Budweiser could for one year keep itself afloat based on its six score years of careful stewardship.  The continuous profligacies of our past governance, the reluctance to save for a rainy day, put us in the opposite position.  We have outspent and overpromised our ability to produce.  Returning the architects of economic demise to power continues to pave the road of good intentions.  And that road leads to * * *.
Republican vs. Democrat
The Economic Difference
            While the primary daily media is sold that only Democrats worry about the poor and the huddled masses yearning to be free, this is a cartoonish view of the hearts of Republicans who believe in individual liberty and initiative as the pathways to peace and prosperity.  The general Democratic Party dogma is that all can be solved if more government money is thrown at it; and let's be fair, entrenched Republicans often propose more government programs ladled on past programs (sometimes fixing the old program by starting a new one).  Government is wasteful.  It does not earn the money by the sweat of its brow, the breaking of its back, or the great ponderings of its mind.  It just takes the money ("Mine, Mine, Mine" cry the seagulls in Finding Nemo) after we have done the hard work.
            Republicans tend to think that individuals, families and local organizations know what they want, why they want it, and how to get it.  We do not need graduates of elite colleges (out East, or otherwise) telling us any of those things.  We can figger it out on our own, thank you very much, smug college professor wannabes.   If the size and footprint of government is controlled so that the demands on the purses and labor of the people is kept within reasonable confines, our people, hard working, deep dreaming, driven, will expand our economic output to places unimaginable under the leadership of the Know Betters.  Capitalism is the worst form of governance until you consider all the others (with poetic license altering the words of W. Churchill).
            We need the fruits of our labor back.  We need to go forward with government asking less of us just as John Kennedy asked us to ask less of government.  We should do our best to have a top marginal rate for all taxes, state, local and federal, not greater than 25% of individual income from whatever source derived.  This would give the power back to the people (have you heard that phrase before, Lacy, Bernie and Hillary?) to save on their own account at the magical figure of 10%, leaving 65% of our earnings to live upon day by day.  Wishful thinking, granted.  Impossible thinking, not.
            One more aside.  When you look at electoral maps, why are Democratic leaning states colored blue when the politics of the Democratic Party are turning decidly red?  Is it because the major media want the people to see red when they think of the Republican Party?  They sure want us to forget that the Republican Party had its genesis in the abolitionist movement at the same time the Democrats were touting state's rights in the support of self-determination on the end of slavery.  Has the Republican party ever been the progressive party?  Consider Theodore Roosevelt.
           I want to close with the words of his fifth cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Eleanor was Theodore's niece) written in 1935: "Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.  To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."  (WSJ, 19 May, 2016, A.13)  Like Lyndon Baines Johnson we should have as our goal of any [temporary or otherwise] program turning "taxtakers into taxpayers."