Merriam-Webster defines “deficit” as “an excess of expenditure over revenue.” In layman’s terms, this means spending more money than is generated. There is a clear division between liberal and conservative ideologies concerning the deficit. Inevitably, a citizen’s political ideology has enormous bearing upon his or her view of the deficit and the means of solving it. Recent and future policy will definitely include decisions concerning the deficit and deficit spending, as it is an issue heavily debated at present. For instance, deciding whether or not to extend the tax cuts implemented by former president George W. Bush is a current debacle that largely involves the two differing ideas of solving the deficit. Understanding the different solution that each side proposes is essential to cultivating a clear picture of the twenty-first century deficit.
Liberal citizens tend to promote maintaining or even increasing money to welfare programs, regardless of the size of the deficit; contrarily, conservative citizens are inclined to support tax cuts as a means to stimulate business. “The budget debate that is expected to dominate Congress next year” (politico.com) offers an accurate illustration of the opposing remedies; the Democrats in Congress are “resisting any cuts in Social Security benefits” (politicos.com) whereas the Republicans believe in adopting “fiscal restraint” and “capping [federal] spending” (heritage.com). Edward Lazear, an economist, explicates a solution that returns “spending closer to 2008 levels, then limiting spending in the future” (heritage.com). He asserts that the liberal argument “rests on the flawed premise that we can reduce the deficit only by increasing taxes, as if high levels of spending are a given…Americans don’t have to choose between an enormous deficit or high taxes” (heritage.com). The difference lies in each party’s plans for where to allocate the citizens’ tax dollars. Liberal proponents aim to extend this money to welfare and other government programs, as described by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s reaction to the Bowles-Simpson plan (2010); Pelosi condemned the plan, declaring that the plan must protect “economic security” by preserving welfare programs designed for dependents such as the elderly, “who are counting on the bedrock promises of Social Security and Medicare” (Politico.com). Plans such as these are certain to fuel the major dialogue in Congress for the next few weeks, as the Bush tax cuts will soon expire, and the Congress will be forced to form a consensus regarding solving the deficit.
The deficit consumes 53.5% of the national GDP, according to the CIA World Factbook estimates from 2009. It remains a contentious subject in Congress because of the varying methods of solving it. Each side will confront the task of prioritizing the programs that revenue must be allocated towards, which is an enormous task. Americans are dependent upon the decision of Congress, as each year the deficit rises. According to a recent Gallup poll, terrorism and the “federal government debt” are tied at forty percent as issues that Americans believe are “extremely serious” (heritage.gallup.com); indeed, a citizen is ignorant if he or she discounts the deficit as an imaginary malady.
