Recently I received this request for my stance: “As a concerned voter, I would like to know what your plan is to stabilize the national debt and secure the economy and our future.
As the long-term debt continues to grow, it will hurt our economy, and investment in critical programs like education, infrastructure and R&D will continue to shrink.
But there's still time for a solution. Please make the national debt a priority in the upcoming election, and tell the voters about your fiscal plan.”
This is from a GOP voter and very similar to queries other candidates have received. I hope those who send these messages are really interested in the solution to this problem, not just defending one point of view.
To stabilize the debt I will work with other representatives to return to the method used immediately after WWII that reduced the national debt from 120% of the Gross Domestic Product to approximately 32% in 35 years. That method was basically followed by both Democrats and Republicans during that time and also simultaneously we: built a world class interstate Highway, funded The Marshall Plan and The Truman Doctrine, funded the Cold War, fought two police actions and won the space race.
Ironically with the debt ratio at its lowest, in 1980, the US changed course. An attractive theory was proposed: reduce taxes, cut spending and the resulting economic growth would erase the debt. Even though this may have been well intended, history show us that the debt almost immediately began to grow. At the end of the next 35 years “supply side” economics had returned the debt to over 100% of GDP.
Paying less in taxes is very seductive, but “you get what you pay for.” From 1945 to 1980 the Country made investments in our country, the infrastructure as example, and the economy grew more than enough to cover our debt service. One example of my plan would be increasing the fuel tax to adjust for inflation, which has not increased since 1993. This is a common sense idea, one that has been offered into legislation in a bipartisan manner by U.S. Senators Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn). VIEW
I do believe we should proceed cautiously in paying for what is needed. The discussion should be what needs to be done and how much do we need in revenue to pay for it? Remember that as we catch up on the maintenance that has been ignored more wages will flow to the people who design and build them. This will increase earnings and tax receipts. You don’t receive significant taxes from those in poverty.
There is still time to save our future, but continuing a course that has not worked is not the answer.