In this video, Dr. Chris discuss how he plans to address our country’s national debt while standing by the Constitution. Please see below for the transcript.
The national debt of the United States is currently over $23 trillion! That is $68,400 per citizen or $183,000 per taxpayer. And it gets worse: We currently have over 125 trillion in unfunded liabilities. (Mitchell Nemeth, FEE: 9/17/19: “18 Facts on the U.S. National Debt That Are Almost Too Hard to Believe.”) And it gets worse: The current annual interest on the debt is over $378 billion.
We are spending like a strung-out crack addict with a wallet full of credit cards. At some point, the bubble will burst, and the repo-man will come calling. What language will he be speaking? What will be left to eat? The Great Depression will look luxurious in comparison to our future. But don’t worry — there is a solution. A Constitution Solution.
Hello. I am Dr. Chris Magiera from Warsaw, Indiana, and I am running for the United States House of Representatives from the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana. On
May 5 June 2, 2020, there will be a Republican Party primary election. In that election, I will be challenging the career-politician incumbent for the Republican nomination.
Each day, the massive Administrative State infringes on your God-given natural rights and liberties. Our Founders created this constitutional, representative republic to secure these rights. It will be my pledge to always follow the original intent, understanding, and meaning of the Founders’ Constitution.
If you are like most Americans, the mere thought of all those zeros in billions and trillions just causes your brain to go numb. “It won’t happen in my time” or “They are always saying this” is the usual comment I hear. However, it is real, and the repo-man is coming.
If the U.S. cannot pay its debts, the cost of borrowing will go up for the government, then for consumers. Life quality and productivity will plummet. The only way out will be drastic cuts to government benefits and/or mammoth increases in taxes — to the middle class.
Do I have your attention now? Whether you are a “maker” or a “taker,” life quality is going to suffer, big time.
So, what can we do about it? Can’t we just kick the can down the road, like we always do? You could, but the cost of the interest on the debt will continue to rise and rise and rise.
Almost every year, the government spends more than it takes in. That is the yearly budget deficit. The accumulated deficits, and the interest due, become the long-term debt. For instance, in fiscal years 2018 and 2019, the deficit was about $1.2 trillion each year.
“But the economy is booming,” you retort. It may be, but this current economic “high” is financed by consumer and government borrowing. Whose fault is it? Well, last time I checked the Constitution, it is the Congress, and only the Congress, that has the power to raise revenues and appropriate monies. The President is empowered to either approve or veto bills and to execute the spending provisions.
The national debt is multifactorial and bipartisan. But it is the House of Representatives, of which I am seeking to be a member, that starts the process: Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1: “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”
Over time, I have read many proposals for dealing with the debt and deficits, but none have left me with a sense of satisfaction. Until now. While I do not endorse the following plan as stand-alone legislation, it contains one of the best explanations of the problem and possible solutions that I have ever read.
The paper is from the Manhattan Institute. It is the September 2018 report by Brian Riedl: “A Comprehensive Federal Budget Plan to Avert a Debt Crisis.” It was very, very heavy reading, but one of the features that I found illuminating was his “compare and contrast” of how the various conservative and liberal debt “pipe dreams” simply will not work.
Unlike my Constitution Solution, under which the government must be structured according to Article 1, Section 8, he (Riedl) begins with the assumption that our current mandatory and discretionary spending parameters will remain the same. In other words, his goal is to create a bipartisan plan to stave off economic disaster by the year 2048.
Here is where the dull part begins, but I implore you to bear with me. The national debt is now above the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and, by 2048 will be almost 300 percent of GDP. That is not sustainable. He states, “The entire increase in long-term debt will come from surging Social Security, Medicare, and other government healthcare spending.” Mandatory entitlement spending is about 70 percent of our budget, and the remaining 30 percent is split almost evenly between discretionary military and non-military spending. Over the next 30 years, Medicare and Social Security, and the interest, will create an unfunded liability of $100 trillion.
Stay with me now. Because the mandatory spending and debt will be growing much faster than discretionary spending and debt, his contention is that the system can only be stabilized by action on the mandatory entitlements. He states “Moving to a fully balanced budget is probably not possible. However, stabilizing the national debt around 95 percent of GDP…would likely stabilize the cost of interest on the national debt and the debt’s effect on the economy.”
Why the emphasis on mandatory entitlement spending? Mr. Riedl gives three reasons. “First, it’s the only solution that addresses the underlying problem.” “The second reason” he continues, “is generational equity. Drowning younger workers in ever-rising taxes is no more moral than drowning them is debt…” “The third reason is economic. The level of tax increases that would be necessary to keep pace with the escalating entitlement spending — including a 33 percent payroll tax rate or a 34 percent VAT (value-added tax) — would retard economic growth.”
And one other thing: He goes on to state that “long-term sustainability means that showy reforms, such as across-the-board discretionary spending cuts, are less important than subtle entitlement reforms that produce larger savings over time.” I mention that last point because that is precisely the flawed budgetary philosophy promoted by my opponent.
I am speaking of Representative Banks’ June 13, 2019 proposed amendment to HR 2740: Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Defense, State, Foreign Operations, and Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2020. According to the Congressional Record, the Amendment read, “Each amount made available in division D, except those amounts made available to the Department of Defense, is hereby reduced by 14 percent.”
The Congressional Record continues, with Representative Banks saying “Mr. Chair, I am going to be back. I am going to come back time and time again, proposing this same amendment for across-the-board cuts of 14 percent…”
So, what’s my point? Well, so, given the debt facts as presented by Mr. Riedl, it appears that Representative Banks is on a fool’s errand. He is proposing mere budgetary bandaids when what is needed is a more comprehensive cure. So, before everyone falls into a coma, allow me to present a brief summary of Brian Riedl’s solution. “Stabilizing the national debt at 95 percent of GDP would require tax-and-spending reforms producing net savings against the baseline that gradually rise to 6 percent of the GDP annually by 2048.”
How will this be accomplished?
Well, there you have it. This discussion was like prepping for a colonoscopy — no fun, but necessary for a good outcome!
But before I sign off, remember that I said I did not support this plan. Well, as logical and as well thought out as it is, I cannot support it as a stand-alone solution. The deficit and debt can only be effectively addressed, not by budget bandaids as my opponent proposes, but by a serious Constitution Solution.
The only way to eliminate the tyranny of the massive and autonomous Administrative State is to restore the federal government spending to those limited and enumerated powers, mostly found in Article 1, Section 8. Remember, the other powers are largely reserved, as outlined in the 10th Amendment, to the States or to the People. It has taken over 80 years to create the largely unconstitutional Administrative State, so it is probably going to take, perhaps, 40 or 50 years to sunset the offending agencies and transfer jurisdiction to the States.
Did you hear what I said? It will be for the States to decide what and how to implement programs and spending vested to them by the Constitution.
I could support the budget and debt reforms as proposed in the Riedl report only if they were part of an iron-clad, locked down, air-tight transition plan to restore spending according to the original intent of the Founders’ Constitution. Remember, when considering legislation, it is the duty of every member of Congress to ask the following questions, in this order: Is it Constitutional? Can we afford it? Do we need it?
May 5 June 2, 2020, I ask you to vote for a Republican candidate who has a serious vision for a comprehensive Constitution Solution, not just some showy budgetary bandaids. Vote to secure your God-given natural rights and liberties. Vote for Dr. Chris Magiera for Congress from the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana. Thank you.