Today I'll make an exception.
Maybe you've seen this already -- lopping eight zeroes from U.S. federal financials to illustrate what annual household finances would look like in proportion. To wit, I present the mythical "Jones" family:
Income (net): $21,700Obviously, any household with a balance sheet like that is living irresponsibly beyond its means. The Joneses, recognizing this, decide to cut this year's spending:
Expenditures: $38,200
Borrowing: $16,500
Debt (total): $142,710
Reduction in expenditures: $385That's absurd, of course -- but it's precisely what our elected officials are doing.
I've read commentary suggesting that the Jones analogy demonstrates the need to increase household income dramatically (that is, the U.S. government must impose onerous taxes). That misses the point by a country mile.
What the Obama administration calls "a balanced approach" -- reducing spending while increasing revenue -- truly is, in my view, the only intellectually honest solution to the debt-and-deficit problem. Still, a simplistic household analogy makes it clear that it's our spending that needs change -- revolutionary change -- and I have absolutely zero confidence that'll happen.
Our President, who's showing us that inspiration isn't the same thing as leadership, doesn't have the juice to do it. Congress isn't capable of it, and neither is a bipartisan "super committee," which is nothing more than a dysfunctional Congress en micro.
In any case, the entitlement-hungry masses wouldn't allow it.
I can't see the status quo lasting longer than a few years more -- and since the problems won't be fixed, American life as we know it could crumble. I can imagine order beginning to break down within a year and civil unrest becoming widespread within two.
Pessimistic? Damned right.
