Reducing and eliminating the national debt is possible.

We all, regardless of political inclination, have complained about excess governmental employees, frustrated by lack of work ethic, offices open only when we’re working and closed during federal holidays. We’ve been disgusted by taxpayer money going to wasteful research projects and projects which lack both need and accountability.

It’s our fault for allowing it. We, both political parties and politicians within them, have looked away for decades. Presidential press conferences and State of the Union addresses from Clinton to Biden have expounded on the need to balance the budget, lower spending, expose waste, increase accountability, and reduce negative balance of payments. It was all talk. No specific solution proposed. No concrete action taken.

We can’t wait any longer. We must act now hoping it’s not too late.

Two short-term achievable methods are decreasing spending and eliminating negative balance of payments.

This necessitates reducing or eliminating non-essential, small impact discretionary projects/programs and decreasing employee costs within established departments.

Inherent disruptions to terminated employees are ameliorated because careers in the private sector are available given most employers can’t find employees, let alone those capable.

In Reality:

• The purpose of government isn’t to employ people but only do what we can’t do ourselves. We must think in terms of necessities not niceties regarding governmental endeavor.
• Whether business, family, or government, when balancing a budget it’s preferable to reduce expenditure before raising prices, a second job or increasing taxes, respectively.
• Reducing employees increases dollars available for a program’s mission.
• 86,000 IRS agents are auditing us. We shouldn’t be upset about 40 DOGE employees auditing those receiving/spending trillions in tax dollars.
• An economy must grow faster than money-supply increases, or inflation is guaranteed. Only the government can increase money supply, consequently government spending must decrease.

Historically, working for the government was a privilege; a higher calling. One proudly expected to do more and at a higher level. With years of unrestrained hiring, times have changed. However, we shouldn’t put them all in the same box. The ineffective minority of government workers negatively affects our image of the effective majority, as one bad restaurant experience spreads faster than five great experiences.

A dangerous political trend has developed to hide expenditures: establishment of entities that are off the payroll books. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its 1500+ employees aren’t subject to Congressional oversight, nor funded by Congress, but rather directly by the Fed. $810M in 2024.

Out of the Box Solution: Salary Cap

Give the directors of governmental departments/programs a salary cap. They determine employee numbers and compensation motivating the director to minimize middle management keeping more “boots on the ground” where the work is actually done. USAID would keep those onsite. Forest Service those clearing trails, overseeing campgrounds, monitoring logging, fighting fires etc. reducing those behind a desk. The director would be more selective in hiring, hold his people more accountable and role model by being more involved with the organization’s mission.

Believing the solution to inefficient government is more government is being overweight and expecting to lose weight by heading to the buffet.

Balancing the budget must include eliminating our negative balance of payments. Our negative balance is significant- $1.2 trillion in 2024. Our leaders allowed it to reach this point. Because they failed to act, it increased from $98 billion in 1988, to $509 billion in 2000, $749 billion in 2016, and $1.2 trillion in 2024.

Why does it matter if imports exceed exports? More dollars leave the country than come in. Economic negatives include:

• Losing domestic jobs to foreign production,
• Decreasing revenue from business and individual income taxes,
• Increasing national debt,
• Decreasing international value of the dollar,
• Reducing dollars available for economic transactional and multiplier effects,
• Decreasing dollars available for investments, infrastructure, and economic development,
• Increasing the price of imported goods,
• Increasing our reliance on foreign countries, giving them influence over economic and national security,
• Reducing the control of resources necessary to manufacture products we require,
• Providing foreign countries, who may not have our best interests at heart, with our dollars which they use to buy our businesses and land. This may be the most significant negative. At the least, they are seeking the advantages of our economic system without the accompanying responsibilities. Their control of our scarce resources increases and profit generated leaves our country.

Foreign ownership of agricultural land generates risk. Canada owns 14 million acres enabling them to avoid importing from US farmers. China owns 384,000 acres providing them small degree of control of our food, but more significantly they purchased land proximate to 19 military bases. Probably not coincidental; increasing their opportunity for espionage or sabotage.

In Reality: Tariffs are the most effective way to reduce a negative balance of payments.

• They must work. 176 countries have tariffs on US products. We’re their top importer. Since we are their biggest customer shouldn’t they pay a fee when we buy their products?
• We import Canadian oil as a favor. We can meet our needs without it, but without us they don’t have a market. They lack transportation capabilities to get oil to another country.
• The majority of our imports are niceties not necessities.
• Import tariffs are applied to the cost of producing goods, not the retail price we see.
• If we reduce imports, demand for shipping decreases, lowering shipping costs.
• If our tariffs can cause a world-wide recession the world has been living off our money.

Logical Solution

Foreign countries will be motivated to produce in the United States. The Toyota factory in Kentucky doesn’t pay a tariff.

Out of the Box Solutions:

• Require the exporting country to write a tariff check to the US. If they choose to add the tariff to the importer’s wholesale cost, so be it. The importer can choose to pay the increased cost, attempt to negotiate, or seek a different source.
• Require a zero-based balance of payments. For every dollar of products we import, they must buy a dollar of our products.
• Focus on acquiring and controlling the resources, because then we control the where and when of production.

We can’t deny the need to balance the budget nor what it entails. We can disagree with the strategies currently being used, but alternative proposals haven’t emerged. Failure to act can’t continue to be the status quo. We must be willing to do what’s best for the country in the long term, even if it involves short term pain.

The protections provided in our constitution won’t be available if we don’t exist economically. We are the free world’s safeguard from imperialism and the world’s source for personal freedom and economic opportunity. It’s our personal responsibility to guarantee it in perpetuity.

Bryan Whiting feels most of our issues are best solved by personal responsibility and an understanding of non-partisan economics rather than government intervention. Comments and column suggestions to: bwpersonalresponsibility@gmail.com.