After Donald Trump spoke in Vegas today, a man who said he’s from Mexico confronted him during his Q&A and said he’s “incredibly insulted” by what Trump has been saying about illegal immigrants and Mexico.
He told Trump he’s being unfair to paint all illegal immigrants with a broad brush, but Trump piped up, “Did the government of Mexico ask you to come up and say this?”
The man dismissed Trump’s comment and asked him if he would build walls around every U.S. state to keep out all the rapists and criminals who are already in the United States and cross state lines.
Trump continued to stand by everything he’s said thus far on the matter, and right before they moved on, the man shouted, “Did you read the Statue of Liberty?”
Am I the only one that finds billionaire/environmentalist Tom Steyer siding with Consumer Watchdog’s attack on the oil companies counter intuitive?
Consumer Watchdog and Steyer say the oil companies are manipulating production so Californians have to pay more for gasoline. They say it adds to the cost of gasoline for the consumer.
Steyer’s goal is to get people to reduce or perhaps stop entirely the use of fossil fuels. He’s a renewable energy advocate. Shouldn’t he be thrilled that people must pay more for gasoline encouraging them to use less? Wouldn’t the laws of economics help his crusade to reduce fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable energy if people had to pay not the $3.44 per gallon average in California today but say, $15.44 a gallon; or $50.44 per gallon, for that matter?
Or is there another agenda here?
If the idea is to paint the oil companies as bad guys, gouging the public, that might come in handy if Steyer runs the campaign he has discussed to levy a tax on oil as it is removed from the ground. Then again such a tax would also raise the cost of gasoline at the pump for the average Californian.
California’s tax and regulation requirements for gasoline and reduced number of refineries are the chief reasons Californians pay so much more for gasoline than other parts of the country.
Yet, Steyer says cost is a concern for him. He told the L.A. Times that even the current cost of gasoline is a burden on working people commuting to work.
Well, I’m not a billionaire so maybe Mr. Steyer understands something about finances that escapes me — but in my two plus two world the economics of this situation do not add up.
Between the 2010 midterms and President Obama’s re-election in 2012, the conventional understanding of political polarization was that Republicans had shifted sharply to the right, while Democrats had remained essentially where they were, or maybe edged ever-so-slightly leftward. The argument that polarization is largely a Republican-driven phenomenon—that the two poles are drifting apart, but that the red pole is moving much faster than the blue one—looked weaker after the 2012 election, when Obama came out swinging for an ambitious liberal agenda in his inaugural address. Now, as the 2016 election gets underway, this narrative will likely need to be scrapped entirely. The New York Times recently reported on the Democratic Party’s leftward lurch, and how frontrunner Hillary Clinton is adapting to it:
Nearly 20 years after President Bill Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over,” Hillary Rodham Clinton is proposing muscular federal policies that would require hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending and markedly expand Washington’s influence in a host of areas, from universal prekindergarten to Alzheimer’s disease research…
Against the sweep of Democratic Party history, Mrs. Clinton’s proposals reflect a decided return to vibrant liberalism.
The government programs of Franklin D. Roosevelt – whose presidency Mrs. Clinton regularly invokes – and Lyndon B. Johnson aimed to transform the lives of poor and elderly Americans with jobs, health care, and retirement benefits. But the consecutive electoral losses of Jimmy Carter, Walter F. Mondale, and Michael S. Dukakis in the 1980s – as well as President Ronald Reagan’s framing of government as “the problem” – gave rise to centrist Democrats like Bill Clinton who envisioned federal programs as safety nets rather than solutions to every social ill.
During the 2012 election, Barack Obama memorably attacked the Republicans’ rightward shift, saying that Ronald Reagan could not win a modern Republican presidential nomination. That may be true, but it’s also true that Bill Clinton could not win a modern Democratic presidential nomination—as evidenced by the fact that Hillary Clinton has had to renounce the majority of her husband’s positions in order to be competitive.
This left-populist resurgence comes even as the nation might be poised to drift rightward, for two reasons. The big challenge—and opportunity—facing America today is the decline of the postwar welfare and managerial state beginning in the 1970s (what we call the “blue model”). The Democratic party’s orthodox response to this trend is to try to shore up what’s left of that model, and rebuild some of what’s been lost. But as Walter Russell Mead has documented at length, the blue decline traces, at least in part, to economic and demographic factors like globalization, technological change, and the aging of the population that simply can’t be put back in the genie’s bottle
Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is set to give a major economic speech Monday, after weeks of deferring about her plans to improve the U.S economy including whether she’ll raise taxes.
The focus of her economic agenda will be to increase middle class income and wages. And she will argue that stagnant paychecks is the biggest challenge facing the U.S. economy.
Clinton's campaign on Saturday provided a preview of her speech, which will also include the argument that the real income of everyday Americans must rise steadily alongside corporate profits and executive compensation.
Clinton declined in a CNN interview earlier this week to say whether she would raise taxes on big corporations or the country’s highest wage-earners, as primary challenger Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed.
“I think we have to grow the economy faster and fairer,” she said. “So we have to do what will actually work in the short term, the medium term and the long term. … then, I’ll look forward to the debate.”
While top-tier Republican candidate and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has called for an annual growth rate of 4 percent, Clinton will assert that the nation's economy should not be judged by a specific growth figure but rather by how much income increases for middle-class households.
"For a typical working American, their income has not been rising anywhere near as fast as it should be rising, and that is the challenge we face," said David Kamin, a New York University law professor who has advised Clinton's campaign. "It's not a new problem, and it's going to take a holistic vision."
The Clinton campaign said the former first lady and New York senator in her speech at The New School, a university in New York City, will point to economic progress during her husband's two terms in the 1990s and more recently under President Obama.
But she will aim to identify ways of improving upon the uneven nature of the nation's recovery since the Great Recession, bolstering wages even as the unemployment rate has fallen to a seven-year low of 5.3 percent.
Clinton is also expected to begin outlining a series of specific economic proposals this summer on issues like wage growth, college affordability, corporate accountability and paid leave.
Roblero is accused of driving drunk and causing a crash that injured two people over the weekend. He managed to post his $75,000 bond and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials approved his release from jail.
Now, another illegal immigrant, Antonio Arellano, is accused of hit-and-run causing serious injury, driving without a license, and reckless driving.
The woman he allegedly hit spoke to ABC11 Friday from her hospital bed at WakeMed where she is recovering from surgery.
"Just looked up and there's a truck coming head on. I tried to swerve to avoid it, and there was nothing I could do," said Stephanie Johnson.
Johnson says she heard about the release of Roblero on ABC 11 and feared Arellano might also get out of jail. She suspects Arellano might have been driving drunk.
However, that's something investigators can't prove since he wasn't arrested until two days after the crash.
"I see here that you have two prior convictions for impaired driving and that you have been removed from the United States by a previous immigration proceeding," Wake County District Court Judge Ned Mangum told Arellano during the suspect's first court appearance on the charges Friday afternoon.
During that appearance, Mangum nearly tripled the bond on the 31 year old.
Witnesses at the crash scene identified Arellano.
That includes the woman who told a 911 dispatcher: "The gentleman walked away. He got out of the F-150 [pickup truck] and walked toward Jonesville Road."
Johnson, who suffered a lacerated liver, a broken wrist and ribs, and a compound fracture to her left leg, can't believe anyone could walk away from a crash and leave someone badly injured.
"I know he heard me screaming for help," said Johnson. "That's all. That's all I ever remember saying, 'Help me. Get me out of this car.'"
An ICE official said because Arellano has two prior DWI convictions in Wake and Randolph Counties he falls under the "priority" category for the Homeland Security agency.
That means, if Arellano posts his $32,000 bond, he still won't be able to leave jail because the feds will detain him.
Roblero was approved for release according to the ICE official because he didn't meet ICE priorities -- specifically that he hasn't been convicted of a crime and hasn't been deported since 2014.
He has been charged with prior crimes that haven't been tried and was deported but that was before 2014.
An Arkansas woman who went to pick up the class ring she ordered from Walmart left disappointed, after store officials told her the retailer's new policy barred them from turning the item over -- because it bore an image of the Confederate flag.
Elaine Glidewell told KFSM someone from the store in Fort Smith called her to pick up the ring she'd ordered for her nephew, but when she arrived on Tuesday, a clerk told her she couldn’t have it. The ring had been ordered before Walmart stopped selling items bearing images of the flag, in the wake of controversy that stemmed from a racially-charged shooting in South Carolina.
“I wanted to cry,” Glidewell told KFSM, adding that the store clerk said the ring would be "melted."
Glidewell said she paid $320 for the ring and was going to present it to her nephew, who recently graduated. He had expressed interest in a design that bore a Rebel mascot that incorporates the Confederate battle flag. She got her money back, but no ring.
“They wouldn’t let me have the ring. It had a note on it, was in a plastic bag, it said do not sell. It was signed by the store manager,” Glidewell said.
Brian Nick, spokesman for Walmart, told FoxNews.com Glidewell was denied the ring because her transaction came after the retailer made a “business decision” to stop selling items with the Confederate flag on it.
“The decision was made several weeks ago not to sell products promoting the confederate flag and this item fell under that category and the associate made the right choice and did not complete the sale,” Nick said.
Nick said the ring might have slipped through the cracks because a third party manufactured it, and the store did not realize the Confederate flag was on the ring until an associate went to sell it.
“Because there was a little bit of time I think that’s probably the reason it was noticed a few weeks after,” Nick said.
Nick said the store put Glidewell in touch with a manufacturer, who can get her a new ring, but Glidewell says it was that particular piece she wanted.
“I would give anything to have that ring. Anything. Just because it means so much to him,” Glidewell said.
FRANKFORT – A Republican attorney I know sees the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage and the reaction in Kentucky – where some county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses – through the lens of history.
“It’s this generation’s Brown v. Board of Education,” he said, referring to the landmark court ruling that school segregation was unconstitutional.
“You don’t have to like it, but it’s the law,” my attorney friend continued.
The attorney is no Democrat. He’s not urban and he’s certainly not liberal. I have no idea how he feels about the morality of same-sex marriage. But he understands the law and how our system works.
There are similarities between the same-sex ruling, Obergefell v. Hodges, and the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that threw out the “separate but equal” justification for school desegregation.
Even the phrase “separate but equal” resonates in some Kentucky county clerks’ explanation of why their religious beliefs should allow them to refuse to grant marriage licenses. After all, they say, a couple can obtain the desired license simply by driving to a neighboring county – but they didn’t ask opposite-sex couples to do that until the court ruling.
The court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. But it was 1964 before the Glasgow schools I attended integrated. Significant social change sometimes doesn’t happen overnight.
There are likely to be others who resist the ruling of the court. Just like some did in the civil rights era, some are now calling for changes to our court system and decrying a decision by “five liberal, unelected lawyers” (never mind a majority of the court is conservative and was appointed by Republican presidents).
Like civil rights and abortion, there will probably be more court battles as some resist the ruling. But supporters of same-sex marriage can probably draw hope from the history of the civil rights battles and from the general trend of American history to enlarge and expand individual minority rights rather than restrict them.
For decades now, the liberal “news” media have demonstrated a dramatic tilt toward the gay agenda, beginning with their notion that there is no such thing as a “gay agenda.” But now as the Supreme Court mandated gay “marriage” on all 50 states the liberal world is celebrating the agenda it has been pushing for decades.
Television coverage has been the usual appalling agitprop, but in this case it was also a victory lap. News segments have been either unanimous in their "analysis" or, if "balance" is presented, stacked by about five to one. Simply put, a debate is not allowed, just as it is not allowed on global warming, gun rights, abortion and a host of other liberal imperatives. So much for free speech.
Former Good Morning America weather man Sam Champion is a gay activist on air and off, and he recently told CNN that this liberal bias is terrific. “I think TV always eases the path for change. I think what people watch in their homes, what they're comfortable with in their homes leads the way for acceptance in this country.”
Champion and his champions are never, ever asked serious questions challenging their views. What kinds of questions are appropriate?
Enter Kevin DeYoung. Mr. DeYoung has taken to the Gospel Coalition website to pose over forty questions to Christians who consider themselves supporters of gay "marriage." These are precisely the kinds of questions a disinterested press would ask if it were disinterested.
Gays have suggested – and now aggressively insist – that it’s not “Christian” to oppose the gay agenda. The secular media know nothing about Christianity, or if they do, they don’t really care to discuss it. Imagine them dropping these questions to a gay-Left advocate:
“How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?”
Or: “Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship? If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?”
Then there’s the fidelity question:
“Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?” Gay rabble-rouser Dan Savage insists monogamy is for suckers. Why is he wrong?
DeYoung poses questions about the politics of this issue. Wouldn't it be fascinating if one, just one reporter would ask:
“Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?”
Or: “Do you think children do best with a mother and a father? If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?”
Driven out by whistleblowers, Acting Inspector General of the Veterans Administration Richard Griffin finally resigned last week. Good riddance. Griffin had whitewashed and concealed information about inadequate care and phony waiting lists and tried to retaliate against truth-tellers.
But don’t expect real improvement at the VA. Griffin’s successor is another bureaucratic lifer, Lin Halliday. She’s been collecting a paycheck from the VA Inspector General’s office since 1992, while the deadly problems festered. President Obama seems to like that approach.
On July 2, as Obama descended from Air Force One at a Wisconsin stop, whistleblower Ryan Honl, a Gulf War Veteran, seized a moment on the tarmac to urge the president to appoint an independent Inspector General. “If they just pick someone new from inside the agency, it will be business as usual and the problems will continue,” Honl warned. But the President brushed Honl off, saying VA Secretary Robert McDonald “had it covered.”
Sorry. That’s not true.
Only the president can appoint an Inspector General. Federal law requires that the Veterans Administration, and other departments, have outside Inspectors General to guard against corruption and mismanagement. Obama simply refuses to appoint them, allowing the vacant offices to be filled instead by “acting” IGs like Griffin and Halliday. These are lapdogs instead of watchdogs, compliant temporary placeholders from inside the system.
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks during a house party hosted by Nancy Emanuel, a retired Nurse and former instructor at Indian Hills Community College in Ottumwa, and her husband, Dennis Emanuel, an attorney, Tuesday, July 7, 2015, in Ottumwa, Iowa. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)(AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
Pundits have focused recently on Hillary Clinton’s narrowing lead in polls among a group of less well known Republicans, along with voters' growing skepticism about her integrity. But a much more immediate threat to her electability is beginning to appear: in the last few weeks, Clinton has lost significant ground in both New Hampshire and Iowa to socialist Bernie Sanders.
The latest Suffolk University poll has Sanders within 10 percentage points of Clinton, at 41-31, among Democrats in New Hampshire. Clinton is only eight points ahead of Sanders, 43-35, in a WMUR/CNN poll
In Iowa, Clinton remains well in front, with 52% to Sanders’s 33%--but she has slipped 26 points since May. And top Iowa Democrats have voiced skepticism about Clinton’s candidacy for months, as reported in the Wall Street Journalearlier this year.
Hillary Clinton finds herself with a real and credible threat in the primaries from Sanders, who spoke to 10,000 cheering supporters in Madison, Wisconsin last week—the biggest crowd that a candidate from either party has drawn.
“My heart wouldn’t be in it for Hillary to the extent that it might be if it was a different candidate,” said Jennifer Herrington, chair of the Page County Democrats. “There’s always the nagging feeling that her ship may have sailed,” said Tom Swartz, who heads the Marshall County Democrats, of Hillary. “Elizabeth Warren, I would enjoy going out to lunch with her. Hillary, less,” Lorraine Williams, chairwoman of the Washington County Democrats, commented.
President Obama pushed for fair housing in his weekly address, after his administration announced earlier in the week a rule that would make it easier for communities to implement the Fair Housing Act.
The Fair Housing Act has, for 50 years, prevented landlords from turning away tenants due to race, religion, sex, origin or disability. But the work o the Congress that passed that legislation "remains unfinished," Obama explains. "In some cities, kids living just blocks apart lead incredibly different lives," the president said. "They go to different schools, play in different parks, shop in different stores, and walk down different streets. And often, the quality of those schools and the safety of those parks and streets are far from equal."
"That runs against the values we hold dear as Americans," Obama said. "In this country, of all countries, a person's zip code shouldn't decide their destiny."
The president vowed to continue fighting for equality, promising new rules will also make data on housing and neighborhood conditions more accessible to help cities identify what areas need help.
Read the full transcript of the president's address:
Hi, everybody. It’s our job as citizens to make sure we keep pushing this country we love toward our most cherished ideals – that all of us are created equal, and all of us deserve an equal shot.
This week, my Administration took new steps to bring us closer to that goal.
Almost 50 years ago, Republicans and Democrats in Congress came together to pass the Fair Housing Act. It’s a law that says landlords can’t turn away tenants solely because of their race, religion, sex, national origin, or disability. And it made a difference in this country.
Still, the work of the Fair Housing Act remains unfinished. Just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that policies segregating minorities in poor neighborhoods, even unintentionally, are against the law. The Court recognized what many people know to be true from their own lives: that too often, where people live determines what opportunities they have in life.
In some cities, kids living just blocks apart lead incredibly different lives. They go to different schools, play in different parks, shop in different stores, and walk down different streets. And often, the quality of those schools and the safety of those parks and streets are far from equal – which means those kids aren’t getting an equal shot in life.
That runs against the values we hold dear as Americans. In this country, of all countries, a person’s zip code shouldn’t decide their destiny. We don’t guarantee equal outcomes, but we do strive to guarantee an equal shot at opportunity – in every neighborhood, for every American.
Now, the Fair Housing Act also says that this isn’t the responsibility of a landlord alone – local governments have a role to play, too. That’s why, this week, my Administration announced that we’ll make it easier for communities to implement this law. We’re using data on housing and neighborhood conditions to help cities identify the areas that need the most help. We’re doing more to help communities meet their own goals. Plus, by opening this data to everybody, everyone in a community – not just elected officials – can weigh in. If you want a bus stop added near your home, or more affordable housing nearby, now you’ll have the data you need to make your case.
These actions won’t make every community perfect. That’s something we all have to strive for in our own lives. But they will help make our communities stronger and more vibrant. And they’ll help keep this a country where kids from every background can grow up knowing that no matter who you are, what you look like, or where you live, you can write your own story.
That’s the America I love. And it’s the America I’ll keep fighting for. Thanks, and have a great weekend.
Donald Trump held a press conference in Los Angeles tonight, joined by family members of individuals killed by illegal immigrants. Trump met with them in private earlier today before holding the presser.
Trump started things out by again insisting that his remarks about immigrants were absolutely on-point, saying that Mexico is deliberately sending less than its best into the United States.
He touted how he’s the only candidate talking about this, dismissed the “very few” protesters gathered nearby to stand against up, and ripped the media for being “dishonest” in its coverage of him.
Trump then handed things over to the aforementioned family members to share their personal, heartfelt stories and why they’re standing with Trump on this issue.
Propaganda tactics employed by the Environmental Protection and its activist allies increasingly employ emotion as a primary media tool. Mothers and children pose on the US Capitol steps, waving signs that claim they are fighting for clean air and their children’s health. Images of these “lovable lobbyists” for EPA’s Clean Power Plan and other rules are intentionally heart-tugging.
It is maternal instinct versus scientific facts; emotions versus informed debate. If EPA issues dire warnings, that is all these moms need to hear. Indeed, it is hard to overcome such pleadings with cold facts alone.
The well-orchestrated “do something” demonstrations enable politicians and agencies to devise and implement new legislation and regulations. It is much like physicians who succumb to patients’ “do something” demands by prescribing antibiotics for common colds. It is a useless, if not dangerous practice.
The public’s general fear of anything labeled a chemical, or requiring some comfort with numbers, is a powerful psychological tool for alarmists. In-the-street TV interviews showing
If the air is hazy, even from natural sources like pine trees, many people automatically assume it is injurious to their health, even if the “pollution” levels are perfectly safe. The dose makes the poison. It’s even worse for invisible toxins. The linear no-threshold mindset now governs virtually all government toxicology programs.
The attitude assumes there is no safe limit. Any and all substances in any amount may be injurious to health, until proven otherwise. Forgone possible health or economic benefits from the demonized substances are not considered. Economist Julian Simon coined the term “false bad news” to describe how activists, regulators and the media make innocuous substances sound harmful, when they target something and set-out to ban it.
These crusaders ignore impartial and even convincing scientific rebuttals, since they specialize in publicizing bad news and perpetuating their own prejudiced agendas. Hollywood celebrities and politicians have become pseudo-authoritative fonts of pseudo-scientific knowledge for the media-obsessed public. Actors should be the least believable, as they make a career by pretending to be what they are not and regurgitating words written for them by others. But somehow they become star experts. Many career politicians are little better.
Leroy Jones is Chairman of the Essex County Democratic Committee, the third most populous county in New Jersey, whose county seat is Newark. According to LiveLeak:
Video was released purportedly showing Leroy Jones punching 75-year-old Bill Graves, who was volunteering as a poll worker during the incident on primary day, June 2.
“I hear this rumbling, ‘Where the blank is Bill Graves? I’m gonna kick his butt!’” Mr. Graves told a local ABC affiliate. “You can see on the tape it was intentional.”
The suspect, identified by Essex County Prosecutors as Mr. Jones, is seen throwing several punches at Mr. Graves following what appears to be a heated confrontation.
Mr. Graves and his friends said Mr. Jones attacked him because he was backing a political candidate that Mr. Jones did not support.
They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting. — Donald Trump
–
Did you know that in the state of Texas alone over the last few years, more than 2000 illegal aliens were deported after committing sex crimes?
Did you know that in the state of Texas alone over the last few years, nearly a thousand illegal aliens have been convicted of sex crimes against children?
Of course you didn’t. The media has covered these horrors up for years, and even after Donald Trump dared reveal these horrors, the rape-deniers in the media continue to cover them up. The media is covering up all kinds of horrific statistic regarding illegal aliens. Before we get to those, let’s start with why.
To Democrats and their media allies, a few hundred raped children a year is seen as a small price to pay for the political benefits that come with an unsecure border. Mexicans vote 3-to-1 for Democrats. Now to Trump specifically…
We are currently entering week four of the mainstream media asking Donald Trump the same immigration questions over and over and over again. This is the media’s Todd Akin Playbook. If you remember in 2012, an obscure Senate candidate said something stupid about rape during the presidential campaign. Immediately, every Republican on the planet and the RNC distanced themselves from this lunacy, but the media made sure that didn’t matter.
The media knew they had an issue that would damage the GOP with women voters, so for months, solely to benefit Barack Obama, the media used whatever means it could to keep that non-story big and loud. The Todd Akin Playbook also distracted from Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s serial lies about Benghazi
(CNSNews.com) - Testifying in the U.S Senate yesterday, Congressional Budget Office Director Keith Hall warned that the publicly held debt of the U.S. government, when measured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, is headed toward a level the United States has seen only once in its history—at the end of World War II.
To simply contain the debt at the high historical level where it currently sits—74 percent of GDP--would require either significant increases in federal tax revenue or decreases in non-interest federal spending (or a combination of the two).
Historically, U.S. government debt as a percentage of GDP hit its peak in 1945 and 1946, when it was 104 percent and 106 percent of GDP respectively.
In 2015, the CBO estimates that the U.S. government debt will be 74 percent of GDP. That is higher than the 69-percent-of-GDP debt the U.S. government had in 1943—the second year after Pearl Harbor.
By 2039, CBO projects, the debt will increase to 101 percent of GDP and by 2040 to 103 percent GDP.
At that point, Hall told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the “debt would still be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy.”
While the run up in debt as a percentage of GDP in the 1940s financed a global war against Nazi Germany and Japan that ended with an allied victory, the current run toward unprecedented debt is based on projected increases in mandatory federal spending for entitlement programs. These include Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies.
“Mainly because of the aging of the population and rising health care costs, the extended baseline projections show revenues that fall well short of spending over the long term, producing a substantial imbalance in the federal budget,” Hall said in his written testimony.
“As a result, budget deficits are projected to rise steadily and, by 2040, to raise federal debt held by the public to a percentage of GDP seen at only one previous time in U.S. history—the final year of World War II and the following year,” he said.
“Moreover,” he said, “debt would still be on an upward path relative to the size of the economy. Consequently, the policy changes needed to reduce debt to any given amount would become larger and larger over time. The rising debt could not be sustained indefinitely; the government’s creditors would eventually begin to doubt its ability to cut spending or raise revenues by enough to pay its debt obligations, forcing the government to pay much higher interest rates to borrow money.”
Eventually, the nation would face a crisis—with wary investors demanding “much higher interest” rates to buy U.S. government debt.
“How long the nation could sustain such growth in federal debt is impossible to predict with any confidence,’ testified Hall. “At some point, investors would begin to doubt the government’s willingness or ability to meet its debt obligations, requiring it to pay much higher interest costs in order to continue borrowing money.
