Bernie, Just Answer the Question, Please

I give Bernie Sanders a lot of credit -- well, some -- for showing up for the town hall meeting Monday on Fox News in Detroit.  I certainly give him more credit for being there than I give Hillary Clinton, first because she got shamed into attending after Sanders said he'd be there, and second because Bernie had nothing to fear -- he actually believes the things he is saying.

Unfortunately for the nation, some of the things he believes don't make a shred of economic sense.  And worse, the Vermont senator, who polls hugely higher than Hillary among those who claim to care about whether their candidate is "honest and trustworthy", was less than that on Monday -- though it clearly helped him win the Michigan primary last night.

I refer specifically to his comments in regard to the national debt, relative to his proposals for spending money on things that the Government even now with our bloated and unsustainable budget deficit is not spending on.

I know you know the difference, but just so we have our terms correct, or at least agreed-upon, let us note this.  When I mention the deficit, I am talking about the amount by which the government overspends its revenues each year because it spends too much -- there is a fiscal 2015 deficit, a fiscal 2016 deficit, etc.  When the deficit goes down from year to year, it simply means that we were less profligate than the prior year, which isn't much to crow about unless it goes from something bad to zero, as in a balanced budget.

A deficit, then, is a year's worth of loss because spending exceeded income.  When you run a deficit, as we have since John Kasich was in Congress in the 1990s and worked with Speaker Newt Gingrich and (reluctantly) Bill Clinton to eliminate it, you have to borrow money to pay the overspending. 

The debt, on the other hand, is what we still owe at any given moment -- the accumulation of all the borrowing we have had to do to pay for all of the deficits of prior years, less the amount of principal on all those loans which has been paid back with interest.  A national debt of $19 trillion, as we have now, means that we have borrowed $19 trillion more than we have paid back, against all the loans we took out for the deficits of prior years, and that what is left that we owe.

Bernie Sanders was asked pretty specifically about the debt, and how he would address it.  And he didn't come close to answering the question.  He rambled on about "Wall Street", and then started in on his making public colleges "tuition ... free" with his signature hand gesture pointing to the right with his hand when saying "free."

I don't know what your definition of "honest and trustworthy" is, but mine includes something that would entail answering a direct question reasonably directly and not immediately going off on a journey by way of Kansas City and not returning.  And despite the moderator, Bret Baier, trying to get the senator to talk about debt in and of itself, Bernie never came close.

Now, I realize that Fox News probably figured it was lucky to get both candidates to come to Fox in the first place, and Baier probably didn't want to have Bernie get up and walk away, had he tried a third time to get him to answer.  But had I been there in the moderator's chair, I really think I would have pressed the issue, as any good moderator should.

"Senator", I would have said, "we start with a $19 trillion debt that is costing us a huge amount of our budget each year to pay on and, with annual deficits, it is getting larger.  As things go now [he had a chart of this in the town hall] we expect to go to $29 trillion by 2026.  You have proposed additional spending, which would increase that debt over the years, further.

"You have proposed additional taxes and a rate upwards of 90% on the highest income levels.  But you know, or should know, and I know certainly, that even if you took the top 1% and confiscated all their property and their next ten years' earnings, it would not be enough to take the Government through a year or two -- and then there would be no money left with the "rich" to pay for ongoing services, let alone your additional spending, for more than a year or two. 

"Please talk only about the debt, and either explain how you actually will balance the budget to get it paid down, or why you think we can sustain annual trillion-dollar deficits without eventually collapsing economically as a country."

Bret Baier tried; I'll give him that.  But the answer to the debt and the annual deficit problem is not to be found rambling on about "Wall Street" and "taxing the rich."  The annual deficit is very simply explained -- without crashing the economy, the Government can only take in X dollars in revenues.  We spend X plus a lot more now.

It is an economic and geopolitical fact of life that, as one of the recent chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted, our national debt is the USA's biggest threat.  Even Republicans, who recognize that fact, are hard-pressed to find solutions, and that's without making proposals that exacerbate it.

The Democrats appear unwilling to mention the problem at all, or answer questions about it, sort of like the way they won't say "Islamic terrorism."  The media, especially in the rare opportunities the conservative elements of the media get to confront candidates, need to press this matter.

And Bernie, maybe everyone wants you as their uncle, but you still need to answer the question.  Because unlike Hillary's emails, we need to care about the debt.

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu.