The administration wants to pay off the federal debt by 2015.
This seems like a great idea to me. Why should we be giving > 10% of Federal revenues each year to wealthy holders of U.S. debt?
I've heard claims that it would be a bad thing, since it would soak up money that could otherwise be used for social investment. It strikes me that this is a short-term (and possibly short-sighted) objection.
I was floored when I heard the announcement yesterday, since I'd never heard anyone "respectable" propose such a thing before. The assumption has seemed to be that the debt (like the poor) will always be with us.
I was astonished to discover that none of the "journals of record" consider this headline news. Why aren't they out there trumpeting the administration line? As good establishment leftists, we know that's what they should be doing. That's how it works, right?
My astonishment continues with the lack of reaction (positive or negative) on this list.
-- bill
"... a movement to realize the conceivable better state of the world must deny itself the advantages of secret methods and tactical insincerities. It must leave that to its adversaries. We must declare our end plainly from the outset and risk no misunderstandings of our procedure." H.G. Wells