For the past almost five years, beginning in November 2012, I have been blogging about fiscal and economic issues facing the United States. With the unemployment rate now down to 4.3%, and the economy growing at 2% annually and likely to pick up speed, our biggest problem by far is an exploding national debt, currently 77% of GDP (for the public debt on which we pay interest), the highest since the end of WWII.
There are two announced candidates so far for the Nebraska Senate seat which becomes open in January 2019:
- The incumbent, Senator Deb Fischer, a Republican
- Jane Raybould, Lincoln City Councilwoman, a Democrat.
There is always enormous pressure on members of Congress to maintain or increase spending for popular projects and little pressure to cut anything. In general, Republicans deplore large deficits and debt but are ineffective in implementing fiscal restraint while Democrats simply don’t want to talk about the debt problem at all. I am a non-ideological (registered independent) fiscal conservative and social moderate, highly focused on substantially shrinking our annual deficits over a short time period.
Here are my options for the Senate race:
- Enter the Republican Primary. I would get almost no traction running against the incumbent Republican in the Primary, even though she is a big spender, and I am antiabortion and support a national 20 week cutoff for most abortions.
- Run as an independent. This is futile without huge name recognition or financial resources, of which I have neither.
- Enter the Democratic Primary. The announced candidate has a strong party affiliation which I lack. But she has little chance of defeating Senator Fischer in the general election whereas I could by credibly hammering Fischer as a big spender.
Please respond! Please give me you input on this matter one way or another. My email address is email@example.com. Would you support me as a Senate candidate? Congress badly needs more members who are serious about shrinking our debt and I am such a person. More later!
Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook
Depends, your best bet would be to run as a democrat . Being as you publicly Acknowledged voting for Hillary. You would never be able to overcome that fact in a primary. The only way to win a primary is to talk about the true problem with the nations health care system which no politician is willing to talk about. Combined that with you economic principals and you would have a shot. Fisher is Beatable because of her lack of understanding what the ACA is doing to the economy. Give me a shout and I’ll buy you lunch and we can discuss how I can best help you if you decide to run.
Thanks for your interest and point of view. We can’t solve our debt problem without getting healthcare costs under control which means major changes to the ACA.
I have much respect for you as a man and a man who is clear about his beliefs. I appreciate the seriousness of the debt problem I would need clarification on the cutbacks in federal spending. It is there where I probably have the greatest difficulty Federal cuts that reduce any movement towards greater equality will prove difficult for me. It is the ongoing division between the lowest groups in our society with those who have the most that I find so wrong about the U.S.
As I point out in my latest post, it is not necessary to cut any program in order to solve our fiscal problems. We simply need to hold down spending increases to a rate, say 2.5%, which is less than the rate of growth in tax revenue.
True. However, I find that politicians often, both sides of the aisle, generally assume that balancing the budget means making cuts in another area of the budget. From my standpoint, until I feel that the leadership is truly willing to explore ways for creating greater equality for all citizens will I be able to support anyone. Here I am referring to equal access to the highest practices for survival, including health and education which is not just training for employment.
I would adopt a policy of holding spending increases for almost all programs to a rate, about 2 or 2.5 per cent, which is less than the growth in federal tax revenues. This would lead to a gradual shrinking of the annual deficits and therefore a gradual decrease in the debt as a percentage of GDP.
I think that your goals are set unreasonably high. Achieving successful job training for everyone would be an amazing accomplishment by itself. College preparation need not be provided for all since only about 30% of young people are actually graduating with a four year degree these days. Of course, no high school student should be excluded from college prep but voc ed should always be provided as an attractive alternative.