The trouble is, one of our two political parties is built entirely on the lie that fewer taxes equals more growth and, correspondingly, enough tax revenue to pay the government's bills. It's never worked, not once, yet it remains an extraordinarily appealing political “philosophy” that always beats promising you're going to take people's money.

The Europeans tax more than we do, and in a variety of ways. They've discovered that their national sales taxes, or VATs, are levies that, once implemented, are rarely argued with because people stop noticing how much extra they're paying. Of course, those nations have a great thing going because, even as they tax their people enough to pay for health care, pensions, low-income housing and other “social democratic” programs, WE still spend the most money for Europe's defense costs.

As long as we remain the world's policeman — with a de facto empire on our hands, to boot — it's difficult to imagine taxing our citizens enough to pay for what our Econ 101 profs call “guns AND butter,” at least not for programs at the level of generosity the Europeans enjoy. But at the moment we can't even agree amongst ourselves to pay enough taxes to fund either our own “defense (i.e., our empire) OR the entitlements to which we all feel, well, entitled.

We must find ways to forge consensus on tax increases sufficient to pay our bills, or at least to ram through such increases despite the lack of public support. It will require an act of bravery and, probably, sacrifice on the part of Democratic politicians, many of whom likely will lose elections because they had the balls to do the right thing. (Of course, what I mean to say is that sufficient tax hikes will never happen in a million years, and one day during this century the Chinese will make us part of THEIR empire.) The fact is, Bill Clinton and the Democrats in Congress were heroic in passing the tax hike of 1993, even though the nation paid for it afterward with 12 years of Republican congresses (not to mention W.).

The trouble is, one of our two political parties is built entirely on the lie that fewer taxes equals more growth and, correspondingly, enough tax revenue to pay the government's bills. It's never worked, not once, yet it remains an extraordinarily appealing political “philosophy” that always beats promising you're going to take people's money.

The Europeans tax more than we do, and in a variety of ways. They've discovered that their national sales taxes, or VATs, are levies that, once implemented, are rarely argued with because people stop noticing how much extra they're paying. Of course, those nations have a great thing going because, even as they tax their people enough to pay for health care, pensions, low-income housing and other “social democratic” programs, WE still spend the most money for Europe's defense costs.

As long as we remain the world's policeman — with a de facto empire on our hands, to boot — it's difficult to imagine taxing our citizens enough to pay for what our Econ 101 profs call “guns AND butter,” at least not for programs at the level of generosity the Europeans enjoy. But at the moment we can't even agree amongst ourselves to pay enough taxes to fund either our own “defense (i.e., our empire) OR the entitlements to which we all feel, well, entitled.

We must find ways to forge consensus on tax increases sufficient to pay our bills, or at least to ram through such increases despite the lack of public support. It will require an act of bravery and, probably, sacrifice on the part of Democratic politicians, many of whom likely will lose elections because they had the balls to do the right thing. (Of course, what I mean to say is that sufficient tax hikes will never happen in a million years, and one day during this century the Chinese will make us part of THEIR empire.) The fact is, Bill Clinton and the Democrats in Congress were heroic in passing the tax hike of 1993, even though the nation paid for it afterward with 12 years of Republican congresses (not to mention W.).