The only solution to the debt

During his State of the Union address last week President Obama called for a five-year freeze of non-security discretionary spending in the federal budget. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress proposed that spending be returned to 2008 levels. It's possible that one of those plans will be enacted, or something similar, but it's also possible that the two parties won't come to an agreement on the matter. What is certainly true is that either move would have, at best, a tiny effect on the country's incomprehensible $14 trillion national debt. In fact, despite the alarm bells being struck by Democrats and Republicans alike, no one appears anywhere near ready to take action that will actually begin to reduce the ocean of red ink the US finds itself in.

Every day on TV and in print elected officials bemoan the unfair burden that is being handed down to our children and our children's children, but the reality is that no one is ever going to make cuts and adjustments in the budget of the magnitude that would make meaningful reductions in the debt. No one. Ever. Not now, not soon, never. Neither party possesses the political courage to do what really has to be done: decrease defense spending and reform Social Security and Medicare. The non-security discretionary spending that the US government does, while the target for symbolic cuts, is not the problem. It is the areas that both sides are leery of confronting that are the problem.

So let's be honest, then. If we really want to get our financial house in order, if we really want to spare future generations from paying for our spending, then there is only one logical and effective thing to do: raise taxes. As I say, drastic decreases in spending are never going to happen, so the US government must increase tax revenues. It's got to happen at some point and, therefore, if we refuse to do it now we really are passing on the costs of today to our children.

Let me say this plainly: If we accept that major cuts in entitlement programs and defense spending are not going to happen (whether you are for or against them) -- and, based on everything we know about how Washington works THEY ARE NOT -- then those of us who do not advocate for tax increases are accepting that we will hand off a debt of some $15 trillion or $20 trillion to the next generation. I'm tired of hearing about the unfair burden we are passing on. Let's  take the only course open to us and stop the melodramatic whining.

If we want to dance...

No one wants to pay taxes, but unless we're willing to return to an earlier form of civilization, taxes would seem to be here to stay. A think tank called Third Way has a logical idea about how to inform taxpayers about the ways in which our money is being spent: give us a receipt. I think it makes perfect sense.

In the example given, the median American taxpayer in 2009 made $34,140 and paid the US government $5,400 (including payments into the Social Security and Medicare systems). More than $1,000 of the pay-out went to Social Security benefits and nearly another $1,000 went to Medicare and Medicaid. Defense spending, fighting wars and veterans' benefits totaled around $500, and interest on the national debt was $287.

Nothing else costs the average taxpayer more than $70 a year, including highways ($63.89), NASA ($28.09), the FBI ($11.21), the EPA ($11.67), the DEA ($3.14), the national park system ($4.27) and funding for the arts (24 cents). Recent polling shows that about half of those surveyed believe that the US government spends more on foreign aid than Social Security; in reality, of course, we spend more than 20 times on Social Security than the $46.08 that goes to foreign aid.

The Republican Party loves to tell us that they want to lower our taxes and cut spending, but in reality the discretionary elements in the federal budget are relatively small and most pay for important programs. The GOP's pronouncements are a charade and they know it. There's no denying that there is waste in the federal bureaucracy and some things -- subsidies to agribusiness and the oil industry, for example -- should be cut. However, stripping out all of the excess spending is likely impossible in a country this size.

What we really need to do in America -- as unpopular an idea as it is to all of us -- is to raise taxes. Someone once said that if the citizens of this country were truly patriotic they'd celebrate April 15 as a national holiday. I won't go that far, but I do want to see the Bush tax cuts expire and the marginal tax rate raised to pre-1980 levels (70%).

Not with a bang, but with a whimper?

Both sides are saying that any chance for a gambling bill to emerge from this legislative session is over. Gov. Patrick sent the bill back to the House and Senate with an amendment that strips out slot machines (and such an amended bill would, apparently, need a two-thirds majority, which I hadn't realized), and Speaker DeLeo is saying publicly that any such compromise is "doubtful." There is still time, but neither side looks like it's willing to budge.

While those of us against the idea are edging ever closer to victory, it seems like an unsatisfying win. Most of the state's elected officials were willing to dispense with even the simple step of commissioning an independent study of casino gambling and the benefits and negative consequences of bringing it to Massachusetts. Our own local officials were not interested in a real discussion of what slots or a casino at Suffolk Downs would mean to the people and business owners of East Boston.

Politicians are, too often, willing to go along with something because of the way it appears rather than because it is actually something good. The tax-free weekend (Aug 14-15) that the legislature recently passed is a case in point. It doesn't really help anyone. While consumers may save a few bucks here and there, those dollars are already spent in the state budget, so we're all going to have to fork them over sooner or later. As for businesses, studies show that almost all of the money spent on those weekends is for purchases that would have been made anyway. At best, it's a wash for businesses because they need to pay extra money to have more employees working during the busy weekend, but they are still paying for the regular shifts on other weekends when those customers aren't coming in.

Like the idea of bringing casinos and slot machines to this state, it's all glitter and no substance. Unfortunately, our legislators are like infants who get easily sidetracked by shiny things.

A small price to pay

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wants to see a higher gas tax and he is right. I'm not saying that I would enjoy forking over more money at the pump, but less dependence on oil is good for the environment, for our health and for our national security.

Americans have long had the true costs of fuel subsidized and with global warming affecting us more, with our nation filled with overweight folks, and with the geopolitical machinations of the Middle East constantly pulling us in, we need to do what European nations have done for years: use higher gas taxes to raise money and discourage driving.

It may hurt a little, but sometimes we have to do what is best for the greater good. Our men and women in uniform and their families must not be the only ones who sacrifice for their countrymen. While I sit here comfortably and watch them on the news, I have no gripe if all I have to do is part with a few extra bucks.

Joe's mistake

Joe Wurzelbacher, like many other Americans, believes in policies that work against him and the vast majority of citizens. The ersatz plumber and Ohio resident has been used by John McCain as an example of a working guy who would take a hit financially under Barack Obama’s tax proposals. In reality, Joe the Plumber – and millions of other working people – would benefit from a plan that raises taxes just a bit for anyone making more than $250,000 a year and lowers them for most everyone else.

US Census Bureau statistics for 2005 showed that 1.5% of US households earned more than a quarter-million dollars and, yes, I do believe in higher taxes for those at the top. The wealthy have, without exception, benefited from public resources and a stable nation and, therefore, it is justifiable to have them kick in a larger share of the money that is necessary to keep the social contract functioning. Many have raked in cash in the real-estate boom and the soaring stock market of the past decade or two and should now bear a larger responsibility in cleaning up the resulting mess.

Let us not forget that, historically, the highest tax bracket is currently at one of its lowest levels since before the Great Depression. To finance World War I, the uppermost bracket was raised to 67%. During the Depression and then World War II it was increased to as much as 94% and stayed above 70% through the post-war economic boom and into 1981.Under Ronald Reagan the top bracket was lowered first to 50% and then into the mid-30s, where it’s mostly stayed. Currently the tax code tops out at 35%.

Since the 1980s, income disparity has widened drastically in the United States. I believe in spreading out the resources rather than having a small group horde the wealth, allowing them to live in excess while others lose their jobs, live on the streets, suffer from illness, receive subpar educations or go to sleep hungry. There is no justification for this in the richest country in the world. Yes, our status as the economic superpower is now threatened, and this is all the more reason why those who can afford to should be asked to step up and to sacrifice for the good of the country, just as was done in every other difficult period in American history.

"One for you, nineteen for me"

Today is D-Day for American taxpayers. Hopefully, you've already filed with the IRS and the DOR, but if you've waited until now, the Globe has some last-minute information that might help.

This year, for the first time in quite a while, I had to pay. Of course, I could use that money to offset a number of things (to pay my high oil bill this winter or to save for the car it looks like I'll need in the next year when this one goes belly up), but I do understand that in a country like ours there are many good reasons to pay taxes.

On the other hand, it is true that many federal dollars pay for things that I completely disagree with -- tax breaks for oil companies, subsidies for corporations that grow corn, and of course, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, to name a few -- and it's also true that there are huge amounts of waste throughout the system.

In the summer of 1846, the Concord naturalist, writer and thinker Henry David Thoreau was jailed for not paying his poll tax for six years. Thoreau refused to pay as a protest against slavery and the Mexican-American War. Out of the experience came the essay "Civil Disobedience," which has inspired many in the realm of non-violent protest. Thoreau's action and his essay prod us to think about the social contract and the obligations one has when in opposition to government policies.