OP-ED: Figures don't lie

Many folks have heard the quote I am about to cite; I first heard it in college from my finance professor: "Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure.” Seems many in Washington, D.C. do not want us to focus on the figures and, as far as the lying goes, well, I’ll let you decide.

Our problem begins and ends with us not questioning the hard facts and figures available to us and instead we accept what the politicians and the media throw our direction. We accept what we agree with and what makes us feel good; the rest we complain about.

Here are some straight-up facts and figures regarding the federal government’s check book:

Current year federal budget spending is $3.7 trillion. Estimated income this year is $2.6 trillion. Simple math shows a deficit of $1.1 trillion.

The federal government’s deficit right now is north of $15 trillion. That is like having the American Express, Discover, Visa and Master Cards all maxed out. Despite this fact, the president is asking to borrow another $1.2 trillion. Again, simple math would tell us that if we OK the president’s request, we would increase our deficit to more than $16.2 trillion.

By the way, because Congress and the president failed to make any spending cuts to the budget this past year, compounded with automatic spending increases, we continue to add to the deficit at an ever increasing rate.

The president says the solution is for us to pay our fair share. Specifically, he points to the rich and says they need to pay their fair share. So let us institute the president’s policy next year and make the rich pay their fair share. In fact, let’s take all of the American billionaires and tax them 100 percent. The $1.9 trillion windfall would cover the current year deficit and leave $800 billion in surplus. But remember, no cuts were made so the surplus would disappear as fast as it entered the Treasury because next year’s deficit is forecast to be $1.7 trillion.

So the government again spends more than it takes in and is short by $900 billion. To boot, all the billionaires are wiped out. What would be the solution the year after that? Tax the millionaires 100 percent? Does this seem sustainable?

Of course, if we taxed the billionaires and millionaires 100 percent, where would that leave all the local and state governments? If the federal government took all of the money of the billionaires and millionaires, the local school district, for example, would dry up and go out of business.

We, the American voters, need to do our homework. We need to realize that the politicians (left, right and center) have created a government that we, the taxpayer, can no longer afford. All local and state governments must have balanced budgets every year. Why is that not true of the federal government?

I think we can all agree that the president and Congress have a spending problem, not an income problem. We cannot tax the rich enough to pay for what our federal government wants to spend. The federal government needs to cut spending in half for us to even begin paying off our current deficit. In whole, city, state and federal governments need to shrink and shrink now.

It has been said that if the government got rid of all waste, fraud and abuse, we could save 20 percent, or $740 billion per year. It’s a place to start. But just as importantly, we need to allow private companies the freedom to innovate and make money. That means less regulation and lower taxes. Those policies would mean more American jobs. We must again produce our own food and manufacture our own products. The less we import and the more we produce, the more Americans go back to work. When Americans go back to work and American companies prosper, revenue to the government increases. It’s a win-win-win situation.

A great American president once said, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” At the time he said it, it was true and it is true again today.

Robert W. Heagy Jr. was born in San Francisco and now lives in San Bruno. He graduated from Balboa High School and San Francisco State University. He is a veteran and works in executive protection since he retired as a parole agent in San Francisco. He is a member of the My Liberty/San Mateo Community Action Group.