Here's an exercise everyone should do for themselves. I'm not the first, but here's what I just calculated, using just U.S. Government data and a wealth report by Capgemini & Merrill Lynch.

Current national debt is $11 Trillion, or $36 Thousand per American.

Fortunately our plan is to get the rich to shoulder the burden. Before the current economic downturn, there were about 3.1 million millionaires in America. So they could each pitch in $3.6 million and pay this off today. Oops, some millionaires “only” have $1 million, so that won't work. Before you get too spun-up over these millionaires, do a search for: The Millionaire Next Door. You may be surprised at what you find.

OK, we tax income, not wealth and there were 3.8 million tax returns reporting over $200,000 gross income in 2006, so they could divide our current debt and each pay just $2.8 million. Of course if you make “just” $200,000 you'd have to pay all of your income in taxes for 14 years to pay your share. Hmm...

Don't forget, while these rich folks are paying off the debt, the rest of us will be paying for the actual cost of running our government. Without their help, we'll all have to pay a bunch more too.

You may have noticed I've chosen to ignore deficit spending projections for the next decade, but our 2012 national debt projection of over $16 Trillion max'ed out my calculator, sorry.

I'm no Tim Geithner, but it appears to me that even a strong economic recovery would not overcome this problem, and if we continue to grow our debt at this rate can we possibly even have a recovery? Clearly, this spending and taxing strategy can't work.

We need a new plan.

Cheers,
Mr. Huey

Reinventing America – Is it really Socialism? Who Cares?

There has been a prominent side discussion on President Obama's economic plan. During the campaign Sean Hannity used a quote from Karl Marx communist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” which sounds very much like a line that could have come from a candidate Obama speech. Currently “Socialism” is the buzz-word in the conservative media and blogosphere. President Obama, however, insists he's in favor of the free market.

There are a couple of problems with these labels. First problem is there are no universally accepted definitions. Next, you could probably get a consensus on “pure” Socialism, Communism, and a free market, but most countries, the US included, fall in the gray area in between. The disagreement comes in defining the borders between the various ideologies. Finally there is ignorance. most people don't understand these words. The term “Socialism” conjures up images of Hitler, Castro and the Soviet Union. Quite simply, these words are simply slurs and insults to most people, when you use them in a debate you may be factually correct, but you will not deliver your message. When you can't get your message across in a debate you lose the debate.

So what should conservatives do? Take a lesson from Ronald Reagan and phrase things in a way people will understand. Occasionally use these misunderstood terms correctly, but use them sparingly. You don't want to alienate your audience, you want to educate them. The more they understand, the more they will turn to conservatism and reject socialism.

Mr. Huey's Talking Points*:

• If you tax employers, how can they afford to hire new employees?
• You can't tax the economy into prosperity.
• Americans made this country great, not big government.
• Would you hire Barney Frank to run your company?
• Government regulation should be used to protect people, not manage private corporations. Child labor laws are an example of good regulation. Bad regulations like price fixing stifle innovation, drive companies out of business, and put people out of work.

*No, I didn't make all of these up myself but I know a good line when I see it. My complements to the authors.

Cheers,
Mr. Huey