I found the post interesting- not the least because Lewison cited the TPC, a partnership of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution- but also because TPC’s (and, thus, Lewison’s) claims are in direct contrast to what the Treasury itself shows in the 2000-2001 Fiscal Year, which is an increase in the federal debt of over $100 billion. I decided to contact Lewison about his claims. Below are the questions I sent, and his responses:

1. According to the Treasury, the debt increased from 9/30/2000 to 9/30/2001. What are the differences between the numbers you used and the numbers from the Treasury?

2. How much of the Bush debt you cited can be attributed to the growth in entitlements started pre-Clinton and pre-Bush years (i.e. not including the Medicare Drug Bill, etc. that added to the debt) and that obviously grew during both presidencies?

Lewison’s response:

1) The increase in total debt is basically an increase in the Social Security Trust Fund (i.e., intragovernmental debt, money that the government owes itself, which accounts for a bit over a third of all debt). I’m not an expert on all the accounting rules, but if you look at the non-intragovernmental debt, it decreased. But how Social Security is accounted for is a separate issue from the overall fiscal well being of the Federal government under Bush and Clinton.

2) Outside of new programs like the Medicare drug plan, the rate of growth in entitlements should be a wash; since they are proscribed by law, both administrations would have experienced growth in them. The underlying demographics would have had to have been huge to explain the difference in overall spending growth rates.

Regarding #1, Clinton almost balanced the annual budget, but never took care of the long-term entitlement issues America was (and still is) expected to face. So while he (and his Republican Congresses) should get credit for almost balancing the budget, they should also get blame for not touching the Third Rail of politics that is Social Security. I think Lewison is mostly right on this one, though I disagree with his last sentence. (Note: the 2000-2001 recession cut into the revenues in FY2001, which Clinton could not have accounted for in his FY2001 budget, since the recession started one month after the start of FY2001.)

Lewison is a bit more inaccurate in his second point. The rate of entitlements can’t be a wash, as they continue to annually increase as a percentage of the national budget. This in no way excuses Bush and the Republicans for their spending spree(s), nor the Democrats who were in charge for two fiscal years during the Bush presidency, but it does clarify things a bit, I think.

Lewison’s post does point out that a Democratic president spent much better than a Republican president, and rightly so. He did, however, miss that that Bush was opposed by most Republicans on TARP (which Democrats mostly supported, as well as much of the Republican leadership), and while he acknowledged the drop in revenues from the recession at one point in the post, he neglected to do the final math. Using Lewison’s numbers:

• The FY2009 deficit was $1.4 trillion;

• the stimulus accounted for $200 billion of that deficit;

• and the recession accounted for $400 billion losses in revenue for FY2009.

So, while the deficit was an atrocious $800 billion, what Bush was directly responsible for in FY2009 deficit was not nearly as bad as Lewison would like to think. It certainly was not as bad as the FY2010 or proposed FY2011 budgets under President Obama (who, admittedly, has to deal with a terrible recession and seven decades of entitlements and many years of war he is not responsible for).

Overall, as I have been saying for some time, both parties need to grow up. The Debt-Paying Generation is here, as a previous post pointed out, and unless we get a batch of politicians willing to reform how much we spend on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and defense, the situation is only going to get worse. (And no, the new health care law won’t help prevent that financial worsening.)

Full disclosure: I informed Lewison I would likely be using his comments in a post. I am not pulling a bait-and-switch by asking him for his thoughts without disclosing I would use them.

What is the DPG? It is those Americans who are presently between 5 and 30, and will be hardest hit from childhood through death by the debt irresponsibility in Washington. According to calculations broken down from Census Bureau data, the DPG is approximately 35% of the total American population, and currently stands at 108,670,000. Given expected life spans- nearly 80 years old on average, and having increased an average of three years since 1990- it is not impossible to believe that the DPG will be the longest-lived generation in American history.

Why is this age group being named the “Debt-Paying Generation?” Well, primarily because this generation will almost certainly have to pay down most of our national debt through higher taxes, which almost certainly will relegate them to the status of being  the first generation of Americans to live a worse life than its immediate predecessors. Additionally, to rub salt in the wound, the big three entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—will have to be cut and, thus, will pay less to the Debt Paying Generation than the Boomers.

In short, to summarize an upcoming Heritage Foundation paper on the subject, a huge population of Americans will be financially burdened, and their quality of lives diminished, because of errors and dereliction of duty by Members of Congress and presidents in both parties. (Full disclosure: I worked for two months at Heritage on said paper.)

When I interviewed Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) for this site, I asked her about the DPG. She expounded upon how much debt is being added by the Democrats, and how it is demoralizing to young people. According to Bachmann,

I will tell you, anywhere I go to speak, I ask that question. “Do you believe you live better than your parents?” Almost everyone in the audience puts their hand up. I ask them, “do you think your children will live better than you financially?” Virtually no one puts their hands up. I doubt in the last 234 years, if you ask that question of any generation, that they would think that their children would not be better off than they are; I just don’t think that you would have gotten that response. That’s really what is frightening today, because we’ve always been a country that’s been about forward- looking people, and growth. And this is one of the first times when Americans look into the future, and they see diminished way of life, and they see decline.

It is not only Democrats, of course, who are at fault. Republicans voted in unpaid-for Medicare legislation; tax cuts that added to the debt, according to the Congressional Budget Office; and launched a War on Terror that, according to the Congressional Research Service, had cost over $900 billion as of September 2009. Additionally, few Republicans are willing to address our overall defense spending, which increased between 2001 and 2008 by over 90%, not including inflation. However, the real problem is the unwillingness of both parties to address our growing entitlements which, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), need to be cut by 12% of GDP by 2015 in order to keep the debt manageable. (This equals just over $400 billion in annual cuts at the federal level, in 2012 dollars.) In absence of this courage, of course, tax hikes (or “revenues,” in the election-year language of Democrats) will be necessary, and the level of taxation will just devastate the DPG.

Unfortunately, I do not see the political will in Congress necessary to make the changes the IMF recommended. From the Beach/Siggins essay:

The IMF recommendations would consist of Congress eliminating, in 2012 dollars:

• 57% of defense; or, if Congress keeps the full defense budget,
• Over twice the interest payments for next year; or, for a third option,
• Over 30% more than the president’s entire proposed Medicaid budget.

Each of these would have to happen every year until 2015. Of course, Congress could simply eliminate the entire discretionary budget; all of Social Security; and two-thirds of the interest payments for FY 2011  (well, except that not paying the debt’s interest would be to default on the debt itself) to reach the same total cuts this year, and leave the budget in other years untouched.

Medicare and Medicaid are necessarily the biggest concern of budget hawks, especially those who look decades into America’s financial future. Not far behind, however is Social Security. I recently conducted an interview with James Agresti, the founder of Just Facts, a New Jersey-based think tank, about Social Security and its impact on the National Debt. James- who regularly updates the burden of the national debt on Americans on his website- informed me that the Social Security Administration (SSA) may be misrepresenting the solvency of Social Security. According to James,

[I]n 2001, the Social Security Administration projected the trust fund balance would reach $2.54 trillion by the end of 2007. It actually reached $2.24 trillion- 13 percent lower than projected. Yet, if you compare the projections from the 2001 report and the 2008 report, they’re more optimistic in the 2008 report than in the 2001 report. So the financial condition of the Social Security program is worse than they projected…but yet they are saying it’s going to be better in the future. So in 2001 they were saying, [with] expected annual deficit in 2075, we’d have to increase Social Security taxes by about 49 percent to cover that deficit. In 2008, they said we’ll only have to increase taxes by 32 percent.

On April 15, The Center for American Progress noted that in President Obama’s proposed Fiscal Year 2011 budget, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid add up to 41.5% of the federal budget. That is expected to grow astronomically over the next 70 years, under current budget proposals and with Congress’ current intestinal fortitude. Unfortunately, it won’t be these politicians who suffer- it will be their kids and grandchildren. To paraphrase a columnist from the Center for American Progress in The Washington Post some weeks ago, we need a generation of politicians who don’t care about being re-elected, and will thus make the tough choices. Hopefully, the American people vote in such politicians this fall, and in 2012, to prevent America from having its own Greek Tragedy, riots and all.

Dustin Siggins:  So I was reading National Review, the review you got, and I found it very interesting- especially because, on a personal level, I tried to interview Rep. Weiner some weeks ago

Bob Turner: *Chuckles*

DS: On his Politico piece about Social Security. I was going to do a bit of investigative journalism, getting his perspective; getting the perspective of someone else who disagrees with him; and his press secretary answered my phone calls, never responded to my e-mails, and blew me off. So it was very interesting how that worked, especially considering how much he’s on Fox, and how much he’s out there, that he wouldn’t want to talk to someone. I found that very interesting. So I will admit I have a bit of a personal vendetta in going to talk to you.

BT: *Chuckles* Okay.

DS: I have no shame in admitting that. Speaking of Politico, I’m sure you have an opinion on Social Security. Do you agree with the Congressman that Social Security is sound, and if not, how do you fix it?

BT: Weiner suggests that Social Security is sound. In reality, it is no more secure than any other U.S. debt obligations. Some people think the Social Security fund is like a secured savings account, but Social Security money has been spent. What’s left is an IOU, so this is no more secure than every one of our other debts, and all our debts are reliant on the state of the economy.

DS: Okay. How would you- what do you think are good policies to implement, to prevent this IOU from getting worse, which it’s only going to, at this rate?

BT: Well, to fix and to secure Social Security, we need to address the overall health of the economy. Obama’s economic policies- which Weiner supports- are a failure. The way to fix the economy is not through social stimulus spending, but we have to promote business growth. That is the tried-and-true way; it’s still tax cuts and tax credits for research and development; lower capital gains tax; incentives for venture capitalists; new business credits. These are the kind of programs and stimuli that create jobs and expand the economy.

We also have to keep an eye on prudent spending- spending cuts, reduction in government expansion, elimination of waste- you know, all of the tried-and-true methods to get this train back on track.

DS: Okay. I’ll take a little segue into social issues for just a moment.

BT: Okay.

DS: I didn’t see anything on your website regarding abortion. I was wondering what your opinion on it was.

BT: I’m an unabashed pro-lifer. I’m opposed to abortion on moral, religious, social grounds. Partial-birth abortion is particularly heinous, and Weiner has supported that. That would put me on the extreme other end of that position. This is not so much a legislative issue as judicial, except for federal fundings, which if- no, when I’m elected, I would certainly oppose all federal funding of abortion.

DS: You mentioned judicial issues. Can you explain that, just a little bit?

BT: Well, in Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court has said the states cannot legislate abortions as a personal right, so it would probably take a Constitutional amendment, and a major social issue I just don’t think is on the agenda for the next two or four years. The only practical opposition here will be funding- or defunding- of any abortion programs on the federal level.

DS: Fair enough. This has [inaudible] issue since Mitch Daniels- governor of Indiana- said we should have a truce, but obviously with President Obama in office we’re never gonna be able to get a pro-life-

BT: Well, exactly.

DS: – person on the Supreme Court. I guess my third question- I don’t know how much you’ve followed this- Rep. Weiner has targeted Goldline-

BT: Oh, yeah, I got a lot to say about this one.

DS: I was wondering two different questions (related). One, whether or not Goldline has done good or bad things, is this what a Congressman should be involved in? Should a Congressman be involved in targeting a company like this? And second of all- and related to that- if not, why do you think not? If so, why do you think so?

BT: There’s far more to this than meets the eye, and I’d like to give you a bit of my personal experience on this. I believe Representative Weiner is carrying the water for the Obama administration in his fight against Glenn Beck. In reality, it’s a diversion and a sideshow from many of the real issues that Beck is speaking about. You know, we have serious issues, and this ordinarily wouldn’t be worth too much attention, but what they- they: Weiner, Pelosi, Obama, and Company- are really doing is targeting this advertiser to chase the advertiser off the air. By so doing, they harm Beck. Get enough advertisers to do that, and he’s off the air.

Now, some years ago, I did a program, the TV program, with Rush Limbaugh. It lasted three or four years on the air. It was a half-hour television show. I don’t know if you remember it. It was in the mid-90s.

DS: Um, I was 10 at that time, so probably not.

BT: [Laughs} Oh, okay- so you don’t. You were not the target audience.

DS: No, I was not. [Laughs]

BT: At that time, it was a syndicated program, that means the company I was running produced, financed it, distributed it to the stations, and then sold the advertising time to recoup its investment. We found ourselves scrounging for advertisers because a lot of mainline advertisers had received letters. It didn’t take many, and through a little investigation we were reasonably sure those letters were generated by surrogates of the DNC. Most of the letters were from GLAAD, or NOW, accusing Rush of being homophobic, misogynistic, etc. What it did was make the advertisers hesitant. What ultimately happened is the rates we were charging were about half of what we would ordinarily get- which hindered the program. The program was still profitable, but instead of the ratings- which were a little under a 3, which might have generated $25 million a year- we were doing $15, $14 million per year, not making it that attractive for Rush to continue, or his executive producer- brilliant young guy names Roger Ailes.

DS: Roger Ailes? I’ve never heard that term applied to him, but maybe it’s all relative.

BT: That was in the mid-90s. [Laughs]

DS: [Laughs] I’m 24 years old, so I may be a little-

BT: So after that number of years we said, “This is not-“ It was profitable, but it was not profitable enough to be worth the effort, particularly when Rush was doing 10 times better or more in radio. So that effort against the advertisers turned out to be decisive. I see the same thing here, and I can tell you that from personal experience this is not about attacking Goldline- this is about attacking Beck’s advertisers to hinder or cripple the program.

DS: I think it’s a sign of success when he has-

BT: Oh, indeed. He has them scared.

DS: He’s got them scared. You know, they keep talking about all these advertisers that have dropped him, but the evidence just isn’t there that- I just read the most recent numbers; he got something like 2.54 million viewers on his Fox show. [DS: The actual ratings, according to Huffington Post(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/cable-news-ratings-top-30_n_630984.html#s108334) have Beck at 2.057 million viewers per day- third in cable behind O’Reilly and Hannity, respectively.] It’s something along those lines. I mean, he’s smoking everybody, except for Hannity and O’Reilly. So it’s really not working.

So I guess- one of my last questions- I looked at Real Clear Politics to see what they judge the race as, and they don’t even judge the race as competitive. According to the National Review piece, you got in because there was no one to write a check to.

BT: That is true.

DS: So how do you- I don’t know how long Rep. Weiner’s been in office for, but it’s been quite some time-

BT: He’s going for his seventh term.

DS: He’s articulate- I’ve seen him on TV- he’s articulate-

BT: Slick.

DS: Slick, okay. He has a lot of alleged facts at his control- how do you overcome this? I guess it’s an anti-incumbent year, but-

BT: True. I’m not sure how others may judge the competitiveness of this race, but I know something about the people of the 9th District and what they’re concerned about. This is a district of working middle-class homeowners, small business operators- these people work, they pay taxes, these are (dare I say) typical Americans in a very ethnically-diverse area. But these are the things they have in common, and they are worried. They are worried about jobs, about the economy, and they are extremely dissatisfied with the current administration and, I believe, they tie in the Democrats Pelosi and Weiner with as being architects of this problem. Now, the fact that Anthony Weiner has not run against anyone in the last few elections, to me, does not mean he is unbeatable. In the grassroots support, I just feel it. We have just begun, and my political career is three months old. We had our first meeting with volunteers, and we had about 70 people show up.

DS: Wow.

BT: The goal is to get a thousand to cover every one of the 512 EDs in this district, but it’s growing exponentially. I asked, with a show of hands, “How many of you have [n]ever been involved in a political campaign before?” [DS: The audio did not catch the “n” in “never”- which Mr. Turner did say.] And my hand was the first one up. But after that, about 90% of the people in that room have never been involved, and they cut across multiple ages and areas of this district. I found that a very encouraging sign.

If you talk to Karl Rove or Dick Morris, they’ll tell you you need a photogenic candidate. You need Slick slogans and political tricks, and you need a ton of campaign money. Well, how are we doing? Well, I’ve got a face for radio-

DS: [Laughs] I’m in the same boat you are.

BT: And as far as slick political slogans and all, we’re gonna run on principles. That should be unique.

DS: [Laughs]

BT: And for a ton of money, we got volunteers, and we have a lot of them. I can feel the ground moving, and the grass is swaying in our direction. I think this will be under the radar until September. We’re getting a reasonable response to the contribution effort, but a lot of this won’t be seen until later in the campaign, but I think people will kind of wake up around the beginning of September, and they’ll realize this will be a very competitive race.

There are a lot of things going on- a lot of changes in this district that are not apparent on the face of it, but I think this is going to be a very competitive race.

DS: Well, then, I guess I have one more question for you, before I let you go. You mentioned earlier the Obama social spending, and you just said you are going to run on principle. For me personally, I believe the biggest issue facing this nation is our debt- the debt crisis coming down the pike. According to the CBO it’s 2020, according to the IMF it’s 2015, that we hit 100% of debt-to-GDP ratio.

BT: Yes.

DS: So I was wondering two things: How do you think Americans (I don’t know if you will be able to answer this), how do you think Americans can trust Republicans, considering it was Bush who really started this spending, and Obama, who’s just made it worse. How can Americans trust Republicans, and secondly, as a Member of Congress, would you be willing to cut defense spending- which has at least doubled in the last decade- as a part of reigning in that spending?

BT: I’d be looking to cut spending. I’d be less inclined to cut defense spending when we’re in the midst of the long war, and in a very uncertain world. I believe America’s strength is in its strong military, and secondly, in its strong defense of the right and principles and human freedom, and not some wishy-washy diplomatic tactician’s-

DS: But it’s worked out so well.

BT: [Chuckles] Yeah. The money that can be cut- and there’s only so much real cutting that can be done- is in the redundancies and the wasteful government spending and a cap on spending. And digging into the administrative programs to cut out billions- hundreds of billions- in waste and unneeded programs. But the real way to manage the deficit is to increase the productivity of the nation as a whole. It may even have to be- and it will be- tax decreases in particular areas, particularly against business, that will help grow the economy, and bring that ratio of GDP to deficit down to what we can have manageable levels. It will take a long time before we can really attack this, and I think what we need is appropriations reform in the House- how bills are put together- how earmarks and riders can be attached to bills. We can change all that within the House rules, and a majority of Republicans can do that. Whether they have the political will, I think, in January, we’re gonna find out. We’ll be the majority, and we have [to] them to the test. I am more committed to the principles than to the party, and I hope there are enough others like that, but that remains to be seen. But you’ll get a fight from me, I can tell you that.

DS: Well, you got in because, as you said earlier, there was nobody to write a check to, so I doubt you’re going to be in for a 25-year career in the House.

BT: [Laughs] That would be most unlikely. I think an actuary would put my life expectancy at a little under that anyway, but-

DS: Well, I don’t know how old you are- 66?

BT: 69.

DS: Wow. Geez.

BT: [Laughs] Yeah, we don’t have to dwell on that-

DS: [Laughs] No, no, no- you have the experience, you have the…all the things Rep. Weiner does not, that’s your advantage, right?

BT: Well, yeah, that’s true to a degree. I’ve actually started businesses, and run them, and had real jobs, yes. Mr. Weiner, Mr. Obama, have never had a real job, have never in a business environment, never been at risk.

DS: Well, we definitely agree on this last point.

The audio can be heard here. The transcript is forthcoming, and will be up ASAP.

*Originally published at The Daily Caller.

CAP also has a quick take- they call it an analysis, though it is far short of that- on where the money goes. In actuality, it discusses where Americans would cut the budget. Their findings, as correlated by the numerous sources the “analysis” cites, show Americans are mostly abstract about cutting the budget. According to CAP:

But, the American public’s disdain for “government spending” only holds up in the abstract. The public is much less willing to pull out the hatchet when asked about specific parts of the federal budget. That same Economist poll gave respondents a list of budget areas and asked them which ones should be cut. Only one area garnered majority support for reductions— foreign aid. And foreign aid makes up less than 2 percent of the federal budget even using the most expansive definition. Even eliminating it completely would have little discernible impact on the federal bottom line.

There was not even one other area aside from foreign aid where support for cuts cracked 30 percent, let alone 50, including everything from science and technology to aid to the poor. Support for cuts to two of the biggest budget items—Social Security and Medicare—didn’t even make it out of the single digits. And lest one think this one poll was an anomaly, recent polls from Quinnipiac and Democracy Corps confirm the overall message: people support the abstract idea of spending reductions, but don’t like actually cutting specific programs.

Americans need to make tough choices over the next several years to begin the long process of balancing the federal budget and eliminating our national public debt. CAP’s piece does a credible job of showing that, unfortunately, this may very well not happen. In particular, two segments of Americans deserve blame. First, young-and-middle-aged people don’t want higher taxes for entitlements they won’t receive. Secondly, old people don’t want to lose entitlement benefits for which they have been taxed; and middle-class America. Unfortunately, unless the sacrifices are made, our national debt will swallow this country whole. Hopefully, Americans will realize this and prepare themselves for the tough but necessary path to prosperity.

(For the record, I am one of the young people who doesn’t want to be taxed. I am all for cutting entitlements over time, slowly phasing people out of certain, among other ideas to balance the budget and lessen the debt. This is not fair to older people, but I think it’s the only viable option to kick-start the process. Otherwise, we’ll have to raise taxes, and that will devastate the economy. I have many other ideas, including ones I will address at a later time, but for the sake of this post I will stop with what I have above.)

Greece will need to cut spending – by 10 per cent of GDP over 10 years – while raising revenue and cracking down on its untaxed black-market economy, which counts for as much as a third of all financial activity in the country. This combination could provoke further unrest, and may foretell similar tensions in Italy and Portugal.

If Greece’s crisis and accompanying political unrest were an isolated case, it might be more manageable, but this week the turmoil seemed to spread across the belly of Europe.

On Tuesday, Spain’s cities were shut down by unionized workers protesting its left-wing government’s plan to raise the retirement age to 67 and cut spending in order to deal with its own serious fiscal situation.

Spain has debt of 54 per cent of GDP and a deficit of more than 11 per cent, plus unemployment levels that approach 20 per cent and a housing-market collapse.

What struck me during the NPR report was their emphasis on the retirement age being raised while benefits are to head in the opposite direction in Greece; and at the same time, the story according to The Globe and Mail is that Greece is going to be taking similar steps.  

Riots are occurring in the streets because the government is controlling the retirement benefits of the citizenry.  Scary.

I was listening to the February 23^rd edition of Mark Levin (I do the free podcast a day later while I run, God bless him for making his show free and available) where he talked about being at the mercy of the government.  As these people in Europe see themselves: at the mercy of their government.  “Please sir, can I have some more?”  Where is the dignity and the honor?  I work in a place where I see the day to day sufferings of people who find themselves dependent on a government that only knows of their existence based on a number in a database.  Is this what we want?  To have to go to the government, to Social Security, to your Congress-persons’ offices, to Medicare, and beg for money to exist? 

Tocqueville once lamented about the coming age of rational control.  We look at a leviathan to take away the “pain of thinking” and the “agony of living” as Dr. Mansfield once recounted.  What needs to be explained to people, is that a dependency on government does nothing of the sort!  The people dependent on government might have purged the “pain of thinking” from their lives, but they continue to live in agony as their life is no longer at the will of him or her self or even Providence, but of boards, panels and case workers… How long after Health Care gets passed (should we be so unfortunate) before we are rioting in the streets because we have found ourselves in government bondage? 

-rj