Want to cut the deficit? Reduce the unemployment rate.
How does lower unemployment lead to a lower deficit?
More tax revenue coming in, less strain on the system.
It's not rocket science. It's not even the kind of science you'd learn in eighth grade. This is like Fingerpainting 101. This is the kind of stuff a child could grasp if you took a couple seconds to explain. A large part of our deficit was caused by the absolutely disastrous Bush/Obama tax cuts. This is because revenue, despite what the GOP likes to think, reduces the deficit. And we cut revenue. But unemployment cuts revenue too. If they're not working, they're not paying taxes. Duh?
Cutting the deficit will lead to more economic misery. This is not in dispute except in the lala land our Congresscritters happen to inhabit. Any gains made towards the long, slow crawl out of this Great Recession (soon to be Depression?) have been offset by cuts in government spending at the federal and state level. What we need is stimulative spending. Since we've apparently become the party of NO WE CAN'T, I guess we...can't do that. Failing that, our leaders need to DO NO HARM. Deficit-cutting is unarguably harmful. Yet here we are.
Lowering the unemployment rate lowers the deficit. The spending cuts that are being discussed are the perfect example of one step forward, one step backward, because they will not put anyone to work and will in fact cost jobs.
What we need is to reduce unemployment. We need to put people to work. We need to be talking about JOBS. Again and again we're told NO WE CAN'T, but that constant cry does not undo the TRUTH. If our leaders truly want to cut the deficit, without even raising taxes, they need to be talking about how to put people to work so we can tax them again. Remember when an unemployment rate of 9% was considered to be a shockingly grim scenario? Me too. They're trying to make it into the new normal now. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not pay taxes into the system, because there simply isn't a place for you in this economy anymore. Sorry. But you won't be eligible for Medicare until you're 67, because we need to cut the deficit.
While I'm at it...if you know there's no way in hell they're going to vote for your bill, you may as well throw some items in there that are palatable to the people. For instance, a highly popular tax increase on millionaires. Then you can tell the public that you TRIED to pass a $4 trillion deficit reduction bill that did not include cuts to the Big Three, and the Republicans refused. Instead you get to tell the people that you tried to pass a $2 trillion bill of highly unpopular and damaging spending cuts and the same thing happened - the Republicans refused.
Did a lobotomy become mandatory for all politicians not named Bernie Sanders or Nancy Pelosi? That would explain this mess.