Republicans like to reduce taxes, both to increase MOM and minimize the amount available to the government to spend.
Voters like both the goodies from government spending, especially on entitlements, and to pay lower taxes, at least for themselves.
The obvious problem occurs when insufficient private sector led economic growth and tax receipts don't offset government spending. This ongoing fiscal imbalance leads to higher and higher government deficits and debts for our society as a whole.
And someday those debts and deficits have to brought under control as lenders grow weary of making additional loans to a financially fragile government. In other words, if something can't go on forever, it won't.
Of course, spending more than we make is easy to do, both in government and at the household level as well. As a result, the need for balancing spending and income works the same way for debt accumulation by both government and its individual citizens. Think housing, student loans and credit card debts.
So what to do? Well, actually the solution is pretty simple, assuming we don't want to stiff succeeding generations with the bills we're running up and therefore guarantee them a lower standard of living than we've enjoyed.
We need to make the connection explicit between government spending and taxation.
In the Fiscal Debate, a Little Symbolism Can Go a Long Way recommends an interesting way to get We the People focused on the need to "balance" spending and taxes:
“GRANT me chastity and continence, but not yet.” That line from St. Augustine could describe the undercurrent of the fiscal negotiations in Washington. We must decide whether to pursue a relatively loose and stimulative policy, and to trust in our later discipline, or to slam on the brakes now. . . .Common sense suggests that we need to face up to our overspending and undertaxing issues as a nation.
The sorry truth is that we Americans seem like the addict who keeps saying “I can quit any time,” yet doesn’t cut back. So what else might we say to frame this problem in a more useful way? . . .
To see how this could work, consider this script: Let’s say the Republicans decide to largely give in to what the President Obama is proposing. There is, however, a catch: the president has to agree to raise marginal tax rates on all income classes, not just on the rich. The tax increase would be one-quarter of a percentage point, or some other arbitrary small amount, with larger increases possible for higher incomes, as has been discussed. The deal also stipulates that both the president and Congress must publicly acknowledge that current plans for government spending can’t be financed unless taxes on most or all income groups climb further yet, and by some hefty amount. . . .
The positioning suggested here would highlight the major weakness and, indeed, an evasion in the Obama administration’s fiscal stance — namely, the president’s campaign pledge to protect the middle class from income tax increases. It is commonly agreed that raising taxes on the wealthy alone will close only a small part of our fiscal gap over the next 10 years; an estimate of 15 percent is optimistic.
It could also be agreed that taxes could come back down in the future, but only if politicians found matching spending cuts.
Think of this stance as a first step toward the explicit pairing of spending and taxes, toward a goal of more responsible fiscal decisions. Although taxes would go up for now, this could lead to a smaller, more effective government than our current mismatch of taxes and spending would produce.
Economic conservatives often stress the connection between low taxes and smaller government. But that observation, as an argument for lower current taxes, looks weaker as the years pass. Keeping taxes low doesn’t stop the growth of government spending and, indeed, makes spending taste like a free lunch, because the bill is paid much later. The conservative strategy has long been to hold the line on taxes now, but it would be better to encourage the public to more readily grasp and internalize the costs of government spending.
There is something to be said for “pricing” big government by making an explicit connection to taxes, much the way utilities explicitly price water and electricity. And higher tax revenue now will decrease the extent to which interest on the debt consumes future budgets — and that probably means lower taxes in the future. Counterintuitively, raising tax rates sooner rather than later may be the true “low-tax policy” because it may increase the chance of limiting future taxes. . . .
In our country, the typical approach to fiscal deadlines is to kick the can down the road. But that assumes we are kicking a can, not a grenade. It’s time for at least one party — and why not the electoral loser? — to do something just a little shocking. It can give in on much of the negotiations, but insist that both sides start stressing the fiscal truth."
Simple math suggests that raising taxes on a very few high earners and leaving taxes alone on the great majority or earners won't address our financial issues in a serious way.
If government spends $X, it must collect $X from taxpayers or borrow the money.
If we choose to borrow more instead of taxing, that borrowed money will have to be repaid with interest in the future.
To the extent that future earnings are used to repay debt, future economic growth will be negatively impacted.
And future generations will be the ones repaying the debt and enduring a lower standard of living --- needlessly and all because we didn't deal with our own problems.
What's so hard to understand about that?