When we started this blog in February, 2009, soon after President Barack Obama was sworn into office as the 44th President of these United States of America, we thought we might write 20 or so postings about the basics of the federal budget with some thrown in on taxes and health care policy for good measure.
Since they were all integrally tied-in with each other.
This is the 591st publication of such ruminations out of 658 that have been written over that 7.1 year period. 67 that we started writing bored even us upon second thought or were so poorly-written or thought-out, we thought the better part of valor was to just let them die on the shelf.
Still, roughly close to 85 ruminations have been published each year since 2009.
Nothing on the federal spending, budget, tax or even the healthcare side of things has gotten appreciably better since President Barack Obama was elected in 2008.
In fact, it could be argued that things have gotten far worse under President Obama during those 7 years.
We have accumulated another $10 trillion in national debt under his term in office. More than the accumulated amount of federal debt that occurred under any President dating back to George Washington on a nominal basis at least.
The federal budget is not balanced.
When President Obama leaves the White House next January 20, 2017, the federal deficit is expected to balloon once again.
If interest rates even start to approach the more 'normal' range they have been in for the past 50 years in America, say 5%, the federal deficit will explode as we have to service the then-$21 trillion in national debt at 5%+ (or far more) instead of the current 2% we pay now in interest costs.
This will mean over $1 trillion in net interest costs will be going out the door each year under the next President no matter who it is; left, right, socialist or whatever. That would be close to 23% of the federal budget each year for those of you counting at home.
Tax rates are higher under President Obama than they were before he took office. Taxes imposed on business and individuals such as the plethora of new taxes imposed under the ACA are a major reason why the economy is still stuck in neutral, or worse, and has been for the past 6 years at least.
As noted in a previous post, we would have all been FAR better off had President Obama and the Democrats 100% in charge of Congress and the US Senate in 2009-2010 just focused on expanding Medicaid under the ACA and just left the private markets alone. There are so many distortions and contradictions and contortions in the private health insurance market today that many of the ACA co-ops are collapsing; health insurers are leaving states right and left and refusing to carry any ACA policies any longer and many people have just given up trying to find a good policy any longer and just pay the ACA fine or ignore it altogether.
Take a look at this article which pretty much sums up the total 'success' (sic) of the Obama White House years when it comes to financial, fiscal and economic matters: 'Obama is Pleased With Yellin As Economy Shows Signs of Slowing'.
If the US economy was a submarine, the captain would be screaming: 'FULL STOP!"
'Near-zero' means 'zero' especially when you take into account that we still have some inflation in our system.
Do you young people have any earthly idea what 'zero economic growth' means for you and any and all of your friends who have graduated from college in the last 6 years?
It means that the economy is not even growing fast enough to absorb all of the graduates entering the work force beyond what it takes to replace the people who retire or die and otherwise leave the workforce.
It means that recent graduates are probably working at below-normal salaries and wages because in a non-growing economy, businesses do not need to hire any additional employees, especially when such hires means enormous additional costs such as imposed by the ACA and increased regulations over the past 7 years.
'A zero rate of economic growth' means that wages will be stagnant for as long as the economy stays weak. It means chances for rapid escalation through the work force in your chosen industry is nil.
Young people of America: You deserve to experience the full benefits of a thriving, growing, dynamic job-creating America.
Those of us who are about to go on Social Security and Medicare (and send you the enormous bills to pay for out of your weekly, bi-weekly or monthly paychecks forever it will seem to you) at least had the chance to live through 2 of the greatest economic explosions America has ever experienced: 1982-1988 under President Ronald Reagan and 1995-2000 under President Bill Clinton.
A 'President Bernie Sanders' would produce an economy that undershoots even that of the Obama White House. A 'President Hillary Clinton' would continue the same economic policies of President Obama that has produced 0.0 GDP growth as she has repeatedly vowed on the campaign trail time and time again.
However, none of that will mean a thing to you if you and your friends: 1) can't find a good, high-paying job; 2) can't move up the economic ladder of success as fast as you want to or 3) even buy a starter home and begin a family.
Otherwise, you will be voting for 'Zero.Point. Zero' economic growth. Again. After 2 previous elections already.
Remember how Dean Wormer said it. That is all you need to know about your future.