1) Scenario: The economist, Lawrence Kotlikoff, published his paper last March
that the
United States is technically bankrupt; the present value of all of
our future obligations is greater than the present value of the revenue we
expect
to take in plus our current debt (this is based on projections from OMB, Social
Security Administration, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). The
Federal Reserve addressed the article in
a report that we will be able to avoid bankruptcy — by renegotiating Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security promises.
And in the Gokhale/Smetters
Treasury Department’s report, they listed
these choices to avoid bankruptcy:
(1) increasing federal income taxes by 74%;
(2) increasing payroll taxes by 103%;
(3) cutting federal purchases by 115%; , or
(4) cutting social security and Medicaid by 47%.
The other option they didn’t explore is to print and circulate more money
to stimulate inflation so that we can pay today’s debt with dollars that
aren’t worth as much.
Question: As a Representative, what concrete measures do you promote to deal
with our bankruptcy threat? Do you plan to raise taxes (if so, which ones, and
how much revenue would be raised) or cut programs (if so, which ones, and how
much would the savings be) or spur inflation?
Kevin Bazzy |
No reply |
| Cynthia Dunbar | No reply |
| Dean Hrbacek | No reply |
| Brian Klock | We will try and respond by week's end. |
| Nick Lampson | No reply |
| John Manlove | No reply |
| Pete Olson | No reply |
| Ryan Rowley | I plan to change our current tax system, cut spending, and to change
the way the Federal Government handles money. There might be some untaped revenue beyond our borders. |
| Shelley Sekula-Gibbs | No reply |
| Jim Squier | No reply |
| Robert Talton | No reply |
2) Scenario: the Federal and some local governments are investigating and
starting to implement programs to offer loan assistance or to bail out people
who took cash out of their homes to finance their lifestyle and now find themselves
owing more than the house is worth with adjustable rates rising. People who
bought houses they could actually afford and didn’t use their equity
to boost their standard of living are concerned that they will be taxes, since
they still have cash, to pay for the first group’s predicament.
Question: As a Representative, would you promote legislation to rescue
homeowners near foreclosure so that they do not lose their houses? If so, how
much money
would you make available, and how would it be funded? And if you protect these
homeowners, how do you discourage people, in the future, from recreating the
problem under the assumption that the government will bail them out again?
If you discourage bills to rescue homeowners near foreclosure, do
you promote legislation to prosecute predatory lenders? Do you promote any legislation
to assist these people to stay out of bankruptcy? Do you promote legislation
to force banks to assume the “toxic mortgage” once they’ve
threatened a homeowner with foreclosure and pushed that owner into abandoning
the house?
Kevin Bazzy |
No reply |
| Cynthia Dunbar | No reply |
| Dean Hrbacek | No reply |
| Brian Klock | We will try and respond by week's end. |
| Nick Lampson | No reply |
| John Manlove | No reply |
| Pete Olson | No reply |
| Ryan Rowley | I see a direct government bailout as unconstitutional. We need to encourage the lending industry to find real solutions and we need to punish any company that has broken our laws. The federal government can not be the "be-all-end-all" of everthing. |
| Shelley Sekula-Gibbs | No reply |
| Jim Squier | No reply |
| Robert Talton | No reply |
Return to Essays & Editorials list