A Deficit of Answers on Debt
With the midterm election season in full swing, candidates for Congress are promising voters a familiar mix of benefits—often in the form of tax cuts. These proposals are frequently not broad-based reductions but narrowly targeted breaks designed to appeal to particular groups: homeowners, farmers, workers, or business owners. Such measures are easy to understand and, at least in theory, leave more money in people's pockets.
Consider proposals to expand the capital gains exclusion on home sales. If you’re sitting on substantial home equity, raising the exclusion sounds attractive. Even younger homeowners might reasonably imagine benefiting from it someday. And how many candidates want to stand before voters and explain why they oppose a tax break specifically aimed at them?
But there is an enormous problem hovering over all these promises: the federal government’s deteriorating fiscal condition. The federal deficit has continued to widen, while the national debt has climbed beyond $40 trillion. As debt grows, so does the cost of servicing it. More federal revenue must go toward interest payments rather than defense, infrastructure, health programs, Social Security, or other national priorities.
Eventually, arithmetic wins. Candidates for Congress ought to be talking about this specifically and seriously. They should be explaining what they would cut, what revenues they would raise, what programs they would protect, and what tradeoffs they believe Americans should accept.
Instead, voters too often hear the political equivalent of dessert before dinner. That is understandable. Talking about fiscal discipline is like telling your children about hard work, exercise, and a sensible diet when they would rather hear about vacations, parties, and new clothes.
That leaves voters with an important responsibility. Americans should demand more from the people they intend to send to Washington—not just appealing tax breaks, but a credible plan for addressing the nation’s mounting debt.