How to Fix the Budget Deficit

Even the most optimistic observers have to admit that America's present budget deficit is both an unsustainable and irresponsible creation of governments unwatched and unregulated by voters in the past 30 years. With national debt at a staggering $13.4 trillion, even the least engaged should wonder at just how further generations are expected to deal with the overwhelming challenge of negative intake versus spending for the depleted coffers of Washington.

Raising taxes is always a possibility, but one that hardly guarantees real change. Essentially Congress would need to raise income tax rates to 15% at the minimum, driving families into further destitution while failing to fully secure a change in revenue. And of course there is no mandate forcing Congress to use those taxes for the budget deficit; they might easily add it to their own means of extorting earmarks or championing district spending projects.

No, while taxes are an option, they aren't the first factor of the equation which we must consider. The real solution to America's troubling financial instability is the dramatic cutting of spending, across the board, to foster a steadily decreasing budget issue. Most figures show that the HHS Department and Social Security make up a massive majority of the total spending in America, trailed only slightly by the Department of Defense. These programs all promise good intentions, yet at east small fractions of their total cost could be eliminated in order to fix our revenue and spending dilemmas.

Initially, the closure of unneeded military installations in Europe would be a start for the Department of Defense. Several positions are generally unnecessary, and so shutting them down would benefit the country. In fact, transferring stationed troops to the border of Mexico would be enough to combat the rising drug problem between our countries, which could help eliminate casualties and save money from the largely less than stellar DEA. To be clear, no funding should be cut from the troops themselves, yet many of these bases are simply a drag on our budget clarity.

Some smaller alternatives also exist. The Department of Commerce has turned into a useless organization that makes plenty of briefs and presentations yet hardly has a beneficial impact on our nation's economy. Thus I would move to propose that Congress pass a 5-year mandate on the agency, allowing workers time to gain new employment or even start their own companies before its dissolving. In branching off of this, the departments of labor, personnel management, housing, environmental protection, and homeland security should all face similar mandates, thus cutting preliminary articles down to a more realistic budget condition.

Pushing forward, Congress must also make the hard decision of cutting parts of social security and Medicare coverage. As my colleague Ayla Samadi noted in her article Long-term Security, the government has a duty to create an umbrella factor for both those reaching retirement age and citizens of lower income levels in order to prevent a dramatic fallout from lack of support. Yet at the same time, the middle class should be transferred into 401K savings plans, which, while insecure in their own way, will draw off a huge section of the budget deficit by eliminating it largest spending target.

Finally, the government should cut the proposed healthcare plan of the Obama Administration, which promises to only add more jeopardy to our financial future, and certainly that of our children.

Difficult choices often seem like infectious diseases to the average politician; sending them running fear if one crosses their path. The truth is, we cannot continue to deceive ourselves over their dramatic issue of trust and financial security. Only a decisive move to curb spending will allow us to continue transferring prosperity to the generations to come, and it is the government's duty to do so.


John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

Long-term Security

Not an election cycle goes by without voters hearing the vehement rantings concerning changes to America's debt-laden system of retirement security from both challengers and incumbents in the democratic process. There are cries of instability, injustice, and the unfairness to seniors which both the plan's current state and its recommended improvements seem inevitably bundled with. Despite the flashy and divisive media points which these meandering arguments can stir up, they almost universally miss the centrist and pro-American mission of reforming and revamping the fundamentals of the Social Security System. 

Contrary to the popular talking point of the center-leftists, stabilizing the retirement system is actually an incredibly secure and generally risk free process that can be accomplished through a one time dedication to cooperation within both houses of Congress. 

In order to effectively reform Social Security, the National Alliance Party proposes a three factor process. First, Congress must act to create an umbrella organization for all current Social Security participants over the age of 50. This net will transfer all the retiree funds to a secondary agency for a 40-year mandate of continued  service after these Americans choose to cease working. As the years pass and these citizens retire, they will not be affected by an immediate burden of funding their own retirement if their careers were not adequately successful enough.  By insisting on securing the future of seniors in our country, the government can avoid unnecessary political bloodshed from the older crowd in forthcoming elections. 

Next on the government's plate would be legislation to establish a safety net for the lower half of the impoverished American population. Using basic logic, the poorer and likely the less educated people of this nation should not be trusted with their own retirement funds, as a simple investment mistake could devastate them. In this manner, even the most vulnerable financially would be able to avoid the potential trap of poor decisions with what they have been entrusted with in life. 

It might seem so far as if this system would  not change the sagging weights of the current retirement agency, but its crowning piece is yet to come. Under this more ideal proposal, the government would transfer retirement accounts for the middle class to solidly based 401k investment securities. Instead of handing money to the potentially reckless, Congress could secure people's funds within nearly impenetrable savings accounts while removing the insane burden which is Social Security from the shoulders of future American taxpayers. 

Realistically, America has few other choices when dealing with this issue. As a nation with innumerable foreign and national security interests, we can hardly afford to cut the defense budget out of convenience to bring in more supportive revenue. A mass tax levy might work, but Americans would hardly stand for it at the polling booths, and we do not have enough graduates starting their own companies which may be targeted for more public funds.

In the 21st Century, it is the duty of every elected official and the people whom they represent to make sacrifices for the good of the future. Social Security might have sounded fine in promotion, but in practice it has become a terrible burden which threatens to cripple out economy in the relatively near future. But despite its menace, a series of tough and unrelenting steps can dramatically turn the tide for the good of the people. This is not about politics; it must be about responsibility.

Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Affairs