How to Avoid a $9 Trillion Deficit

In fiscal year 2008, the federal government recorded a total budget deficit of $455 billion, which was $293 billion more than the deficit incurred in 2007. While this increase occurred with a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Senate, all right-minded people (… or should that be all left-minded people?) know that George W. Bush was solely responsible for this deficit. Thank God that President Obama arrived on the scene to save our economy “from the brink” (or should I have said, “Thank goodness” since it’s politically incorrect to “thank God” for anything anymore). Luckily, he also has Vice President Biden at his side to monitor the well-thought out economic stimulus program since “Nobody messes with Joe!” As a result, we cut the deficit to about $1.8 trillion.

What? You’re telling me that $1.8 trillion is nearly four times MORE debt? You’re kidding, right? Hmmmm … the next thing you’re going to tell me is the $9 trillion deficit that’s being projected for 10 years from now is even bigger! How much is $9 trillion any way?

Let’s see: If I earned something in excess of minimum wage … let’s say $9.00 per hour … and worked 40 hours per week, I’d make $18,720 per year. At that rate, assuming I started working at birth, I’d only have to live to be about 481 million years old to pay off the debt (not including interest). Okay, that seems a bit extreme … even with improved healthcare.

What if I was a union worker or got an immediate raise “because of my promise” (in the spirit of Nobel) and was paid $9,000,000 per hour? Then, I’d only have to live to be 481 years old and work 1 million hours. I guess I’d really have to like my job!

It looks like establishing a $9 trillion deficit might be worth more than a casual conversation. I mean … we’re talking $9,000,000,000,000. That’s 9 followed by 12 zeroes. So, if I were President, what would I do? Is there an alternative? The good news is, under my plan, we can reduce the projected deficit, eliminate unemployment and, in fact create a single class of “rich” people.

“Too good to be true,” you say? Consider that the last census (2007) said there are 281,421,906 citizens in the United States and that the average household size is 2.59 people. That means there are approximately 115,830,120 households in our country. As President, I would declare a “state of emergency” and ordain the need for an immediate Economic Stimulus Program (“ESP” for short) to save us from the situation I “inherited.” Using ESP, I would decree each household to be a government agency unto itself (thereby eliminating unemployment), and I would have Congress provide $250,000 to each and every household (thereby eliminating poverty). All for a cost of only $27,164,276,640,927.

But wait … you say $27 trillion and change is more than $9 trillion? You may be right. I was never particularly good at math (which is why I won’t release my college transcripts), but it doesn’t matter! You see: with a household income of $250,000, everybody is “rich” by definition … and nobody likes the rich! Going back to the days of a 70% tax on those bastards, the government recovers $19,014,993,648,649. That means the real cost to the government is only $8,149,282,992,278 after we collect the taxes ... and that, my friends, is less that $9 trillion.

Eureka! I’ve done it. I’ve reduced the debt, eliminated unemployment and poverty, and made every single American household “rich.” Quick … somebody give me the Nobel Prize for Economics.

The really cool aspect of this is that no one has to work for a living other than a small group of IRS employees (to collect the taxes) and the Congressional leadership and me so that our country has people to attend state functions with the political hierarchy of less fortunate countries. In return for our diligent efforts on behalf of our citizens, we would of course be exempt from taxes, mandated flu shots, and public option plans for healthcare, retirement, etc.

Over time, the cost of ESP will go down. As our Nation’s demographics shift when Baby Boomers are replaced by less numerically prolific generations, there will be fewer households to fund. With everyone will being “rich,” the expense associated with public education can be reduced or eliminated since there will be less motivation to learn anything. Law enforcement costs should also go down because there will be little reason to rob, steal, mug, burglarize, etc. Even healthcare cost should decline as the stress of having to earn a living will have been eradicated, and citizens will have more time to relax and gain a disproportionate “balance” in their lives.

This is all good news because I really didn’t know how to sustain the program over time when I first thought of it. If it weren’t for the demographic shift and all of the future cost savings that make ESP “deficit neutral,” I would have had to defer the start of this program until the end of my term, so any adverse consequences would become the problem of my successor. Then again, if for any reason my program doesn’t work, maybe we can just throw a TARP over it.

2009 (C) Dr. T.J. O'Hara