Federal Budget Deficit

Excessive Borrowing: Our Federal Government's Budget Deficit Maria comes home one day earlier than usual. Her family, two daughters of age five and eight and a stay-at-home husband, is surprised to see her so early and unexpectedly. The tired look on her face reveals the experience she had at work. She brings out a sluggish smile as her daughters rush up to greet her with their warm embraces, reminding her of the happiness they constantly provide but also saddened by their questionable future. Quietly, she sits down in front of her anxious spouse as he patiently awaits the news, sensing the tension in the air.Many people like Maria face the ultimate doom of losing the only method they can gain family income, especially in homes where only one spouse is employed. Laying off workers is the government's â€Å"plan† for reducing America's deficit. Of course, getting rid of the executive CEO whose company had a rough year would be bad because we all know not to bite the hand that f eeds you. The federal government is planning on making the gap between revenue and borrowing smaller by making cuts here and there throughout certain interests of America.This makes sense because in all economic situations, if you are spending more than you have, then you either need to cut back on how much you spend or manipulate ways to increase revenue. Cutting military spending has been big in debate whether as to reduce our defenses or not. Many people speculate that military cuts are sound in reducing the deficit because it is too large for us to afford today. It is overlooked that we have been dropping our armed forces significantly over several decades since the early 1980s, from 2. 1 million to 1. 4 million in 2010 (Samuelson).The resulting savings of lowering military spending would be little, since there isn't much else to cut from the already reduced forces. If our national security is a large concern, especially after 9/11, then why expose both troops and citizens at ri sk of terrorist attacks and cyber warfare? The government's job is to protect the nation and its people, and putting money towards improved technology and training is necessary for upholding America's safety and reputation. The question of the budget deficit also involves the issue of raising taxes, one that has not gone smoothly since Britain's reign over the colonies.Many people argue the importance of increasing the taxes on the rich in order to support our economy. Although it makes sense that those with more money should be paying more on taxes than lower income people, but the evidence gathered fails to give strength to the claim that many believe is a solution to the deficit problem. For instance, Obama's plan for raising the taxes for â€Å"those making more than $250,00 is expected to bring in merely $0. 7 trillion† compared to the overwhelming $13 trillion to be accumulated over the same time period (Malm, Sanandaji).It is obvious how big the gap is between the two intimidating numbers, and the government is just wasting its breath about the potential tax hikes. All the talk about the inevitable decisions of either cutting government programs or increasing taxes to save our deficit, and our economy overall, seems ominous and depressing(Aaron). However, our federal government is looking at this the wrong way. It's not about how much a program is cut or how large the numeric value of the deficit is; it's about what and where the money is being invested to enable consistent growth in the upcoming future(Conason).Think back on the potential tax hikes and how it could barely affect our economy. If increased taxes leads to slight growth in revenue, then won't tax cuts lead to loss in revenue? This is another misconception many people, and the government, have about the Bush tax cuts. It lowered the total federal tax burden in order to â€Å"increase market incentives to work, save, and invest and thus create jobs and increase economic growth† (Foy). In essence, the tax cuts focused on the long run instead of the potential losses that immediately followed.Many skeptics challenge the reasoning for investing so much money into helping so many other countries when that money could instead help us improve internal affairs. After all, foreign aid spending has increased to $50 billion a year today, which could be put towards funding education to ensure that more kids go to college and possibly affecting the innovation of the future(Morris). Giving more than you receive is nice, but when it involves a country's financial crisis, maybe it's best if Santa cuts back some of this year's presents.And although the argument may be valid, lending out a helping hand can create more allies than enemies to help us in return when we need it. In fact, foreign aid only accounts for 0. 5 percent of the federal budget (Stearn). Compared to all the other matters at hand that the government is worrying about, the amount of spending put into aidi ng poorer countries is positive in both a moral aspect and a political aspect. The federal budget deficit that we put so much trust in having handled for us is not to be dismissed so easily. This isn't just about the future of our current generation, but also our children's future.Our government fails to look back at history and see how growth has improved our economy and made it flourish. Ultimately, what's at stake here if nothing is done is our jobs, job benefits, our safety, and, overall, having a weak country whose currency is based off of its own good name. By no means is having a high deficit bad, and neither is creating a budget deficit to combat it, but it's all about how the government is handling it, and less spending doesn't always mean more revenue. Works Cited Samuelson, Robert J. â€Å"The Dangerous Debate over Cutting Military Spending. http://www. washingtonpost. com/opinions/the-dangerous-debate-over-cutting-military-spending/2011/10/28/gIQAnPWEXM_story. html. 201 1. Rpt. in  The US Deficit. Ed. Kathy Jennings and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. Sanandaji, Tino, and Arvid Malm. â€Å"Raising Taxes Will Not Resolve the Budget Deficit. â€Å"The US Deficit. Ed. Kathy Jennings and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from â€Å"Obama's Folly: Why Taxing the Rich Is No Solution. http://www. american. com/archive/2011/august/obamasfollytaxingtherich/ article_print. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. Conason, Joe. â€Å"Deficits Do Not Matter. †Ã‚  The Federal Budget Deficit. Ed. Susan Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. At Issue. Rpt. from â€Å"Dick Cheney Was Right: Deficits Don't Matter—and Republicans Who are Complaining About Barack Obama's Spending Are Hypocrites. †Ã‚  Salon. com. 2009. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. Aaron, Henry J. â€Å"The Un ited States Needs to Address Two Distinct Budget Deficits. Government Spending. Ed. Noel Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from â€Å"A Tale of Two Deficits: Stop Treating Them Like They're the Same Thing! †Ã‚  New Republic  (1 June 2011). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. Foy, Andrew, and Brenton Stransky. â€Å"The Bush Tax Cuts Were Good for Economic Growth. †Ã‚  Government Spending. Ed. Noel Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from â€Å"Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts. â€Å"www. americanthinker. com. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.Stearns, Richard. â€Å"Congress Should Not Cut Foreign Aid. †Ã‚  Is Foreign Aid Necessary? Ed. David Haugen and Susan Musser. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from â€Å"Cutting Foreign Aid: Not the America I Love. †Ã‚  Huffington Post. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013. Morris, Di ck. â€Å"Congress Should Cut Foreign Aid. †Ã‚  Is Foreign Aid Necessary? Ed. David Haugen and Susan Musser. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from â€Å"Cut Foreign Aid Budget Now. †Ã‚  http://thehill. com  (29 Mar. 2011). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.