Executive Decision - Budget Responses

President Adrian Morgan Wood Farley, Democrat, Option B

For the standpoint of an economist, the question of whether or not to Balance the Federal Budget has been answered for many years. Deficits provide for economic growth and prevent the depression scenario outlined by Palley.

President Willy Derueget, Independent, Option A

I'm an independant chick with an attitude and I want to boogie all night...

President Juat KayertyTh, Republican, Option A

Let's do some balancing

President Paul Hager, Other, Option A

I'm less concerned with balanced budgets than with hypertrophied and intrusive federal bureaucracies. Greatly reducing the scope of what the feds are involved in will immediately mean that the size of the budget can be reduced. This, in turn, will make it easier to service the debt. I believe that ALL federal bureaucracies should have a sunset provision such that they must prove their worth to a super-majority of Congress every 7 years. This will work to eliminate programs that have outlived their usefulness or programs that the feds should have never been involved in in the first place.

President Edmond Gauvreau, Independent, Option B

I choose Option B only because it contains more desirable elements that should be implemented in the course of running the country. Any approach to the overall reduction of federal debt and performing the business of the nation requires that we manage all of our resources wisely, not simply revenues and expenditures. We have had too many political leaders who are more concerned with "political" rather than "leader" in their modus operandi; while I am not wholly optimistic about the upcoming election, I believe that my fellow citizens want to see evidence of leadership in our elected officials as well as in all aspects of life.

President Jack Valancy, Independent, Option A

President Robert Garner, Independent, Option A

President Derek Smith, Unregistered, Option A

easy, this is the main argument, this is what makes the US(A) divide amongst itself... this is were everyone is out for their best intrest, should we spend money for (Stupid) things that help support milk or other products to benifit buisness!? why, that sounds just like another argument that the President is selling out to buisnesses to make himself money... it is a very sensitive topic and should be elaborated on extesively... everyone needs some money, (the biggest thing since the miracle of birth)... money is the key to prosperity and if the President wants money.. then the Presidency is corupt... however, the Presient (neutral being) should look out to be the main regulation of such a big decision... he needs to look into everyones wellbeing... not just his own... you as a President shouldn't PROMISS ANYTHING.. but to take the US into were the majority of the people think is necessary... in the late 20s to the mid 40s the best intrest was war... but now the best intrest is in our (US) wellbeing not the wellbeing of the rest of the earth... Foreign policy is a major regulation needed in the budget.. also, military and peacetime regulation... National Security is one thing, but are we overdoing it!? Maybe, we are not... but we could save millions to billions is such regulations... but as said "WAR is the only sure way for economic prosperity." This is probally one reason for our praiseing and escaltion of wars... our best bet at winning is to stop unnecessary funding (CIA, FBI, MILITARY, SENSLESS PROGRAMS (Campains to further well establisted Buisnesses) ... and Even what type of parties they hold on Capital Hill... should they spend millions on their wellbeing!? should they pay their own way!? IN CONCLUSION, Your money is being misused and not directed correctly, can it be a scandal which goes back all the way to 1776!? they set up this goverment so we couldn't mess it up... but so hard to change and adapt to the changing times... that is when they state they were looking for "our best intrest" (sound familiar --- HUH!?), well, it shows how much it has changed... people need to inspect their goverment more and trust it to the point were they can have a say on how it is ran... should we regulate the GOVERMENT!? that is the overall concern on anyone who gives a S... about what they are involved in... The BASIC make up of the US GOVERMENT is in the voters who are the only ones who can regulate the US and bring up into our so called best intrests... and this is the basic problem with why we have a defict. (we let them and didn't stop them..)

President Adam Smith, Democrat, Option B

President Damien Carey, Democrat, Option B

President Barbara DeMarco, Democrat, Option B

President Nathan Thompson, Unregistered, Option B

My decision to disregard the deficit as an overwhelming factor was made because I'd much rather spend what money is available to ensure that the economy expands rather than pay to close the deficit & ensure that the economy remains stagnant.

President Leslie Van SickelI , Republican, Option B

I think we need to eliminate many, many things the federal government pays for and pay for them at the state or local level (or not at all). All the entitlements, for starters, need to be de-federalized.

President Robert Davidson, Republican, Option A

We need to not only balance the budget, but also to do so by reducing government's size and power. The tax rates need to be reformed drastically downwards, and goverment expenditures reduced to the point where they no longer exceed the revenue raised. We must curtail Congress's power to increase taxes and raise revenues unchecked. I would propose that no new taxes or other forms of revenue-enhancement be increased, or new ones imposed, without getting three-fifths approval by both the House and the Senate, and approval by the President, and then ratified by a majority of the voters in two-thirds of the States at the next election for Representatives.

President James D. Hillhouse IV, Republican, Option B

As noted, the BD is less of a % of GDP today than in the last 12 years. As compared to other advanced industrial/info. nations, our's is the lowest. It was brought down by growth, increased gov't revenues and moderate spending grouth. Now that the deficit is low, it is time to address income spread and infrastructure spending (tech. as well as roads/bridges). As a Republican, I am sick and tired of hearing the same brainless drivel comming from lobotomized sounding Legislators that we must cut the deficit to zero. Great! So our budget deficit is zero but our nation has no future growth due to a lack of investment in the future. These "Rocket Scientists" say such none-sense as, "If a family can balance a budget, why can't the gov't?" Well, family's do run deficits and spend beyond their means, whenever they take a loan, whether to buy a car, a house, or other goods. Are the fatuous Deficit Hawks saying that we should discourage such purchases because they are deficit funded? No, and why is that? Because, the small mindedness of such naives only goes so far. They know, but will not admit, that if families and individuals purchased on a cash-basis only, our economy would be ashambles. If you can afford a deficit, and the U.S can, especially now, then deficit spending is acceptable. And profitable to society and its industrial growth. It would be nice, though probably unbelievable, to see someone with Leadership stand up and say to the Congress, deficit spending, if kept within limits, is good for America and her economy. And say to the Fed, a bit of growth will not kill us. And then, and here's the real fantacy in this dream of mine, this Leader would actually follow through and take steps to make his/her words become action. Well...one _can_ hope.

President Stephanie Brown, Democrat, Option B

Clinton would LIKE to learn from Hoover but the hype might not let him. It was easy for me.

President David E. Byers, Democrat, Option B

President J. L. Lester, Democrat, Option A

The greatest risk in not balancing the budget is that continuing to fund public services by means of deficit spending perpetuate the American public's illusion that it can have government at no cost. Additionally, I contend that the Reagan-Bush era deficits, unlike those of the Depression or war years, did not arise from a threat to the public good. Rather, they arose from an ideological commitment conjoined to a specious economic theory. In tandem, the ideological commitment to reduced government and the economic emphasis on increasing the supply of investment capital result in government funded speculation, with the reward directed not to the public good but to the already wealthy, those with enough intial capital to leverage their investments. Any real productivity increases during the Reagan-Bush years, I would argue, result from the fact that energy prices stabilized and that the economy had begun to adjust to the increased oil prices of the early 70s. Reagan's economic policy only superheated the economy. It produced huge dividends for capital investors but none at all for the rest of us.

President Sam Patton, Unregistered, Option A

President Philip Zoebisch, Other, Option A

Why isn't libertarian a political affiliation option?

President Donald Ulrich, Unregistered, Option B

President Thomas J. Norman, Democrat, Option A

President D.P.Buck, Republican, Option A

The "choices" withinthis question are severly constrained. In actuality, a ballancd approach with a ballanced budget, mild retiring of long term debt coupled with smart public works "infrastructure" programs makes much more sense. But, were not allowed. The issue is not nearly as black and white as presented. Inflation is not the product of an expanding economy that is healthy and in ballance with it's money supply. Deficit spending when added to the mix always causes the devaluation of the currency in relation to the value of goods which is what inflation is all about.

President ResEas, Republican, Option A

Spending levels are related to tax rates. If the deficit is allowed to continue the average American will have less disposable income. A large debt will eventially cause greater harm to the economy than ending deficit spending now.

President Garry Richards, Option B

President Harry Matthews, Democrat, Option A

I am not an absolutist on the deficit issue -- a deficit *per se* does not scare me -- but I feel that it is presently out of hand. The fact that Clinton has managed to give us both growth *AND* deficit reduction shows that these goals are not contradictory. (The problems of income distribution are separate, and in my view, more serious.)

President Fred, Democrat, Option B

Polls show that a clear majority of Americans are in favor of a balanced budget; I believe that most of these people will have difficulty explaining clearly exactly WHY the budget sould be balanced.

President Tung, Republican, Option A

President Steve Hecox, Independent, Option A

I think there is wisdom in both positions, that the two scenarios presented represent only the extremes. We should continue to shrink the deficit, with an eye to a balanced budget, but the debt itself is not a fearsome Godzilla on the fiscal horizon as it is often depicted.

President Republicus, Republican, Option A

Candidate in favor of my option (A).

President jerry kinzelmann, Independent, Option B

President Ed. S. Renouard, Jr., Democrat, Option B

President Charlee Lambert, Democrat, Option B

It is difficult to compare the Federal government to my own personal spending policies but I believe it has been difficult for the majority to separate the two. I remember the depression and I admired Roosevelt for risking to spend money not available at that time. He did and life in this country improved to the point where the young people of the time saw a way to a better future. Our children today are looking at a future very much as I did -- hopeless. We need to take some chances and make our country a great place to live and not for just a privileged few. Let's go for it!

President RICK B., Republican, Option B

DURING THE 80'S WHY WAS CONGRESS NOT BALANCING THE BUDGET AS WAS THE PLAN WITH DEFICIT SPENDING. I THINK IT IS PROVEN THAT THE TREASURY DID HAVE AN INCREASE OF REVENUE WITH THE EXPANDING ECONOMY SUCH TO THE POINT THAT CONGRESS STUCK THER HANDS INTO THE PIE FOR A EVEN MORE BIGGER PIECE WITHOUT REGARDS TO THE BALOONING DEFICIT. IT IS HARD FOR ME TO TAKE ANY ARGUMENT AGAINST REAGON AND HIS ACTIONS TAKEN. CUT THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT LET THE STATES HAVE THE POWER. THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT CAN PROTECT THE UNION AND KEEP THE HIGHWAYS OPEN BUT STAY OUT OF MY LIFE AND MY BACK POCKET.

President Eden Gillespie, Republican, Option A

President Ilya Shapiro, Republican, Option A

The government simply has no right to tax and spend so much. There are so many unconstitutional programs and regulations on the books--including most entitlements--that one could almost be excused for falling prey to the notion that have nowhere to cut. A balanced budget isn't needed for its own sake, but to rectify the immoral confiscation and redistribution of wealth in this country.

President Charles W. Rogers, Republican, Option A

This is going to be hard on everyone. There is no way around it though,the budget has to be balanced. 21% of the revenue we take in goes to paying on the interest and that percentage has grown bigger as I write this. Who said that it was ok to spend money you dont have? As if thats not enough lets spend it then tell our kids they have to pay it back because we did not think far enough ahead or even consider how our actions would effect their lives.When are the people who ran this debt up over the last 40 years going to take a little responsibility for their actions instead of pay raises? All we get are excuses and the "taxes have to go up" attitude. When I go over budget I cut back on expenses to get on track,however your elected officials see it as your problem even though they are the ones making the decisions on where,when and how much to spend,with little regard as to where the money will come from.When less then 50% of the public actually bothers to vote what else did you really expect.The public made the bed, so enjoy your sleep, tomorrow you may be sleeping in a box.

President me, Other, Option B

President J. Montag, Democrat, Option B

Although I'm not happy with all the implications, I think we have more to learn from Hoover.

President Dick D, Democrat, Option A

President dan mcmurrer, Democrat, Option A

President Dave Giambattista, Independent, Option A

Not quite a clear cut as the sample letters but the key point is that with interest rates relatively low now, the debt payment burden is manageable. BUT should rates rise, cost of gov't borrowing will skyrocket to a much greater percent of federal outlays and cripple many programs or the economy through higher taxes! Budget should be balanced to instill discipline and not push expenditures for interest onto future generations.

President Donald Caswell, Democrat, Option A

I favor reducing the deficit through a return to the income tax standards of the 1940s and '50s, during which time the income tax was far more progressive than today. We could also do away with the Social Security and Medicare shortfalls simply by changing them from their regressive nature to a flat tax [not equal] everyone pays 6.2% regardless of income level.

President Steven Malone, Republican, Option A

President William Paul Rehder, Republican, Option A

I believe it was a hard decision to make, given only two options. I believe we have a third option. We should not be as concerned with the deficet as much as we should be concerned with were the money is spent. We as a nation have not invested the money in capital. We need to lower taxes and social security burdens on all tax payers. Transfer Military spending to capital spending in comercial ships ,transportation, and exlploration in space and the ocean. If we expand our resources, we will do away with the deficet and increase our GDP.

President di, Republican, Option A

President jack, Republican, Option A

President Hartford Honeycutt Jr, Republican, Option A

President Mark Nocciolo, Democrat, Option B

President ruhnke, Democrat, Option A

President Frank F. Yates, Republican, Option A

By continuing to create debt for our children and grandchildren to satisfy our current needs we are sowing the seeds of a future disaster. The government should not spend more money today than it is willing to raise in taxes today. The only rationale for borrowing is to pay for capital investments, and then that debt should be amortized over the useful life of the assets purchased. Probably we should have a formal capital budget, so we can tell the difference between current spending and investment, and don't forget which is which.

President jcooper, Independent, Option B

President Marcia Martinie, Republican, Option A

President Jesus Dobarganes, Republican, Option A

President scott wieduwilt, Independent, Option A

President April Spivey, Democrat, Option B

President John G. Marriott, Democrat, Option A

President Marty, Democrat, Option B

President Scott Baker, Other, Option A

My favorite candidate is Harry Browne (Libertarian nominee). He has a detailed plan to balance the budget. It is explained in his book _Why Government Doesn't Work_.

President Jeff Genauer, Independent, Option A

President Jason Stell, Independent, Option A

A balanced budget is an important part of strengthening the public's confidence in the economic security of the Nation. Debt encourages desperation. With an unbalanced budget, Americans are doomed to be prisoners of future debt, and America's future is doomed to be the prisoner of our present spending. To balancing the budget is an easy and logical decision.

President Bob Stachel, Unregistered, Option B

President Michael Joyce, Democrat, Option B

President Michael J. Skarpelos, Independent, Option A

Those who don't worry about deficits look at the ratio of deficit to GDP. This ratio is low both historically and compared to the corresponding ratios of other G7 countries. Those who do worry about deficits look at the ratio of total debt to GDP and the related ratio of interest on the debt to government expenditures. These ratios are at historic highs. I concede that in times of crisis we need the flexibility to run deficits, but I fear that an already huge debt will destroy that flexibility. Thus, I chose option A not becuase I believe that deficit spending is "inherently sinful" but because I want to give future generations of Americans the option to run deficits in times of crisis.

President Philip D. Stern, Unregistered, Option B

President Steve, Democrat, Option B

President Michael, Other, Option A

President Charles D. Shreve, Independent, Option B

You say that "by Richard Nixon's time the [Keynesian] consensus was expressed in the idea of the 'full employment balanced budget.'" This is true, but we must be reminded that Nixon adopted this terminology at the behest of George Shultz because it helped him explain away what were to him the "embarassing" and surprising deficits his administration produced (after inheriting a structural surplus in FY 1969 from the Johnson administration). It was Nixon who used a pseudo-keynesianism to defend deficits that were structural and the result of sagging economic performance rather than Keynesian or the result of either increased public investment or ditributional equity. In other words, the Nixon administration did not represent the culmination of this Keynesian consensus but the beginning of its unraveling.

President bob wolf, Independent, Option A

President Bobby Matherne, Unregistered, Option B

Completely asinine forced choices. I notice both unsavory choices had the names of Republican presidents attached. Who do you think you're fooling? I chose Hoover because he was stupid enough to have been a Democratic candidate. This forced choice scenario is why I am not registered. I consider voting unpatriotic.

President Howard M. Moss MD, Democrat, Option B

President John Bobbitt, Option A

President Charles Berkley, Democrat, Option B

President Daniel W. Coyne, Democrat, Option A

President David Collier-Brown, Option B

While the suns shines, make hay and put it in the bank. Then maybe we won't have a deficit the next time it rains and we can keep the budget deficits and depts down. Then. Not now. Of course, I have to figure out how to put hay in the bank without them congersmen (;-)) getting at it. And how to get out of this recession without spending toooo much. [side comment: I really do have a recession I'm in Canada. You luck cousins only have a slump --dave]

President stefano monti, Unregistered, Option B

President SAUL A. ROSENTHAL, Republican, Option A

Basically, if you keep borrowing you increase your debt which increases interest payment, until at some time all your money goes to pay interest and nothing else. You have to raise taxes to make payments which draws Capital out of the economy which, like drawing oxygen from the air, suffocates the economy. The problem with the current Administration is that they believe that you can keep spending and still get out of debt. Anyone who has gone into debt knows that is not possible. You don't have to slash programs but you do have to control their growth. You also have to turn Medicre and Social Security into self paying programs. Did you know that if you earned $20,000 a year for 45 years the money you and your employer put into Social Security, would at a mere 7% interest be worth $731,518 and provide an annuity of $62,771 a year for 25 years, until age 90. Use 1.5% of that to pay for the program and it should provide about $36,000 a year for that period and cost the Government nothing to administer the whole thing. Instead the government actually embezzles the money and tells you the programs will be going broke somewhere around 2012 or so. Medicare is similar. If private insurance companies can make fortunes why can the government collect money for 45 years invest it and have plenty to pay insurance premiums for people.

President SAUL A. ROSENTHAL, Republican, Option A

Basically, if you keep borrowing you increase your debt which increases interest payment, until at some time all you money goes to pay interest and nothing else. You have to raise taxes to make payments which draws Capital out of the economy which, like drawing oxygen from the air, suffocates the economy.

President Marcus Milam, Democrat, Option A

A balanced budget is certainly a reasonable goal. Everyone, from Newt Gingrich to Bill Clinton, has said that the era of big government is over. And we can reduce the federal deficit and we can balance the budget and we can do all these thiungs in seven years. However, we do not have to cut and slash across the board in order to accomplish these goals. We can balance the budget without cutting Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security and leaving our senior citizens out on the streets. Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said " the true test of a democracy is not in whether we add to the abundnance of those who have much but if we can add to the prosperity if those who have little". Let us first look at cutting tx breaks for the wealthy. To those who charge that this penalizes the more affluent members of our society, I say it does not penalize but it recognizes that , with a greater share of the wealth comes a greater share of responsibility. Gone are the days when millionares may count upon their friends in the United States government to provide them with tax breaks. We shall all do our part in the fight to balance the budget over the next seven years, from top to bottom, but we can do it without resorting to cruelty and unfairness. As the United States of America celebrates it's 220th year of existence on this planet, let us show the world that we can balance the budget, while at the same time taking care of our people and insuring that the old phrase still rings true for all Americans, and not just wealthy Americans : "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

President P.Biondi, Republican, Option A

President Robert Laposta, Republican, Option B

President Robert Haynes, Other, Option A

I am a Libertarian, (not a Republican) and believe in limited Government, individual responsibility and free markets. The federal budget should obviously be balanced at all times.

President Sam Taylor, Democrat, Option B

It is unfortunate that this debate will be completely irrelevant to the election because, in many ways, it is quite fundamental. However,Dole could not take any other position than balance the budget at any cost even if he had the backgorund and inclination to consider other alternatives. Clinton doesn't have the balls. Consequently, the issue will not be discussed. One wonders if each candidate should not be required to submit the budget he will present to the congress and defend it. Perhaps the requirement to be specific would flush out policy positions. Sam Taylor

President Lori Askeland, Democrat, Option B

President Ernest DePasquale, Independent, Option B

It's much more important that GOOD PAYING JOBS are created, and all people have decent livable housing to raise their family. If American's have these two things for starters the crime rate will plummet. Let's stop building prisons, and start building lives.

President Tavane Michael, Democrat, Option B

The economy is doing fine. Recommend no change in course. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I often wonder, What deficit? If we were to get back 1/2 the money we've invested in rebuilding other countries after various wars, there would be no deficit.

President joe horman, Other, Option B

DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY! The historical record of US budget balancing, beginning in 1817, reveals that after each period of sustained budget reduction, a significant depression followed. Since 1791, the national debt has been increased in 112 years and decreased in 93 years. 57 of those balanced-budget, debt-reduction years have been concentrated in six sustained periods of varying length, each followed by economic depression. THE RECORD 1. 1817-21: in five years, the national debt was reduced by 29 percent, to 90 million dollars. A depression began in 1819. 2. 1823--36: in 14 years, the debt was reduced by 99.7, to $38,000. A depression began in 1837. 3. 1852-57: in six years, the debt was reduced by 59 percent, to $28.7 million. A depression began in 1857. 4. 1867-73: in seven years, the debt was reduced by 27 percent, to $ 2.2 billion. A depression began in 1873. 5. 1880-1893: in 14 years, the debt was reduced by 57 percent, to $ 1 billion. A depression began in 1893. 6. 1920-1930: in 11 years, the debt was reduced by 36 percent, to $ 16.2 billion. A depression began in 1929. There has been no sustained period of budget balancing since 1920-30, and no new depression, the longest such period in US history. There are as yet no exceptions to this historical pattern. All data are from ìHistorical Statistics of the U.S.î The six depression are widely accepted as such in economic histories. Study conducted by Frederick Thayer, Visiting Professor of Public Administration, George Washington University.

President Lance Erie, Democrat, Option B

Movement needs to continue to restrain spending but not, however, at the expense of crippling the economy. The issue is too complex to be left to simple sloganeers and the rather extreme options presented in this scenario. But thanks for the opportunity to provide some input.

President Michael Lynne, Democrat, Option B

We can't ignore the poverty and hopelessness of many of our citizens. Simply cutting back government services in the name of fiscal responsibility will consign more and more to the permanent underclass we are adding to each day. Right now we need to insure that there are jobs that pay a living wage available to those who are willing to work. We need to rebuild our infrastructure, our educational system, provide inexpensive health and child care. It's not that I advocate throwing away money in huge runaway bureaucracies. But we must do more for our neediest citizens; otherwise the very glue that holds this society together is in danger of losing hold.

President Bart Binning, Republican, Option A

It is not the current deficit that is the real problem. Rather, the problem is the unfunded liability of the Social Security system and other entitlements. The transportation taxes, etc. need to be taken off budget and be self- sustaining (cut contributions to those funds if they run a surplus.) Retirement systems, including Social Security, need to become self-funding.

President Joe, Republican, Option A

President Arvi Bakhru, Independent, Option B

President Bart M. Davis, Republican, Option A

President Clyde Magas, Independent, Option A

If we are really concerned about our children (which some in the public claim to be), why should we leave each of them with a $64000 (and growing) debt? This decision should be (and was for me) a no-brainer. Unfortunately many of our politicians, in their quest to keep power, don't quite see it this way.

President P Chinnery, Option A

Considering the fact that, in the future, interest on the national debt will eat up the second largest amount of federal spending, the movment towards a balanced budget is a national necessity.

President Daniel LaGatttuta, Republican, Option A

If we don't force politicians to spend within limits, they won't. Too many times, they put the short term over the long term. And the American taxpayers are stuck with debt. We need to bring the budget into balance soon and then keep it that way.

President Tom Crowley, Democrat, Option B

We don't need a balanced budget, but we should be willing to raise taxes to pay for much of what we want to do. Basically, we should differentiate between operating and capital expenditures.

President Kevin Connolly, Independent, Option B

President Brian Kline, Democrat, Option A

President d. puryear, Democrat, Option B

President Bernd Knoll, Option B

President Mark Smircina, Democrat, Option A

President Brent Buhler, Independent, Option B

President Evan Allen, Democrat, Option A

This is a difficult decision, made more so by the false dichotomy set up. However, within the constraints of that dichotomy, there is a moral obligation that those of one era have to those of the next. That obligation is to pay off their own debts. If my parents were blithely living off the fatted calf, taking trips to Bermuda, eating dinner at Spago every night, buying pleasing and expensive Gucci clothing and accessories, knowing the entire time that they had absolutely no intention of being around when the bills came due, that would be immoral. To leave me to pay their bills would simply be indecent, since they enjoyed all the benefits, and got none of the cost. The deficit is the same way. Doctrinaire attitudes toward specific numbers or specific future dates are probably dangerous, yes. But we must not assume that running up debt we do not plan to pay off in the near future is a tenable *moral* position. Surely some Keynesian play in the system must be allowed, but the total national debt, must, in some years reduce, or we are not meeting our obligations. All households go into debt initially to be able to afford a household, and this is natural, but most plan on paying off the debt, and so should our nation.

President Elsa Bondar, Democrat, Option B

It is easy to use the deficit as an excuse to scapegoat and divide one part of the electorate from another. This I feel is the strategy used by people who try to instill a fear of entitlements, healthcare, educational opportunity costs, etc. We must remember that all debt is not the same. As homeowners know from experience; debt, such as a mortgage, is an investment which will enrich our lives, far beyond original expectation. Debt which results in improved health, better education for ourselves and our children; debt which results in safer communities and environment is a national investment. We are responsible for assuming this debt through taxes and fees, and are responsible through our elected officials and the administration, to see that it is fairly and efficiently administered.

President Harry Hopkins, Democrat, Option B

President brent hamaker, Republican, Option A

President Juanita Millican, Democrat, Option B

President Scott Shorter, Democrat, Option B

President Shawn Jobe, Republican, Option A

President Donald E. Garrett Jr., Democrat, Option B

This was a fairly easy decision. The weight of arbitrary moral positions can easily crush those who must deal with the real world. The panic concerning the balanced budget is actually both a symptom and means of the currently popular process of demonizing the government. This process is probably far more damaging to the health of the nation as a whole than any of the government's mistakes.

President John Swenson Harvey, Democrat, Option B

A "Full-Employment Balanced Budget" makes sense. (Defining full-employment is difficult - but I would tend to set a very strict standard.) The budget must also have generous fiscal policy responses to unemployment in order to be workable.

President Roger Locke, Independent, Option B

President Mary McLachlan, Independent, Option A

My choice was not a hard one to make. The debt you can handle should be viewed against your income. Banks, friends and relatives will view me as only good for a certain amount of debt versus my income. Unlike the US government I cannot print money and must live within my income. I make hard and not so hard choices every day, every month, every year as to how to spend my income. My budget is realistic and not based on the ability, which I don't have, to demand more money from my employer (ie, taxation). Any politician must know that a heavy tax burden leads to unrest in the people. They must balance the true needs of the nation against a torrent of wants. I may want many things but I don't need quite so many when it comes to meeting my budget. Realistically, the US government wastes a lot of money. They pay salaries to people who do absolutely nothing for it. They give money to research exceptionally stupid stuff such as the rate at which catsup flows. Congress treats themselves as royalty. They hire limos, make taxis wait hours for them, have a retirement income that's sinful in light of calling themselve public servants. Instead of buying wholesale, the US government buys retail times a couple of hundred percent. There's a zillion dollars I could save the American public if I only knew every living last place or item it was being spent on. The budget is so convoluted and all we ever hear about is the big umbrella items such as defense. Instead of increasing budget categories every year, I'd cut them for years until I knew that all the wastefulness was gone. Foreign aid is a luxury when taking care of your own is wanting. I give charitably and try to maintain a tithe to my church and community but I have always taken care of my own household basic necessities first. They are my responsibility first. The US government is not responsible in its spending habits. It makes teenagers look fiscally responsible by comparison. I do not have a favorite candidate as they have all come to be the same guy or gal regardless of race, color or creed. None seem to be of, by or for anything but themselves because they all view themselves as beyond, above, and away from the people of this country. They view themselves as a ruling class and that it really how I view them.

President Benedict Schweigert, Unregistered, Option B

The duty of the sovereign is to do whatever is best for the populace. A mad rush at deby reduction without any monitoring of it's actual effect would hardly be in the best interests of the people of America. Only through taking cautious steps toward our goal can we be sure that the patient doesn't die in surgery.

President C E Jensen, Unregistered, Option B

I have to agree with the notion that zero inflation is meaningless in a nation where its inhabitants (middle and lower class) can't make ends meet. It goes against my fiscal conservative nature, but it makes sense to me.

President Bernard Nisenholz, Democrat, Option B

I had recently that every attempt to balance the budget (6 times) in our history had led to a depression.

President Tim Warner, Democrat, Option B

The "balanced budget issue" debate confirms that the American public is completely willing to be duped into "understanding" something in its most watered down, irrelevent form. The federal government is not like a family's check book. Sure, the government should be run responsively and as much "like a business" as possible. But when politics pumps up its muscles and Presidents and candidates start buying votes in the Sun Belt with increased defense spending, all rational discussion of "balancing the budget" is over. Sen. Bob Kerrey is right -- we're not even talking about balancing the budget until we're willing to discuss Social Security, Medicare, Defense Spending and all other matters. Put them all on the table and zap anybody who blames foreign aid for our budget problems with a cattle prod -- Except Pat Buchanan (we need him around so we can know what the enemy really looks like).

President Ernie Golnik, Independent, Option B

President dnewton, Republican, Option A

President Kurt Priensberg, Other, Option B

It's disheartening that the Western World is likely to repeat the same mistakes made seventy years ago. No doubt Keynes is spinning in his grave.

President T.K. Conrad, Democrat, Option B

Our country's economic policy should be concerned with helping Americans become economically self-sufficient. Short-term deficit spending makes for a more robust economy in which more money flows back to the government in the most natural way; through increased earnings. The U.S. economy should serve the people, not itself.

President SC Peterson, Option A

President Robert Laramee, Democrat, Option B

The forces pushing for a balanced budget represent a regressive, reactionary political point of view. So long as the only way available to balance the budget is by severly limiting the social programs of the country, we must not advocate balancing the budget. When the very rich and major corporations are willing to support the very system that has allowed them to profit so handsomely by paying their fair proportion of taxes;then and only then, can we finally face the task of balancing the budget. I'm not holding my breath. I will not put a greater burden on the working poor and the middle class.

President Cheryl Smith, Republican, Option A

Truthfully, I believe that balancing the budget is hopeless in this country, everyone has there own version of it on Capitol Hill. In the mean time, the deficit grows and grows, it has a life of its own. I am getting where I don't believe any of the politicians anymore,hmmm... balancing the budget? You are better off balancing your own budget and praying that you can survive on that someday.

President F. Gary Knapp, Democrat, Option A

President Marvin Gwinn, Democrat, Option B

President Tom Armstrong, Democrat, Option B

Manageable deficits are acceptable in order to fund need infrastructure investments such as education, transportation and the environment.

President Buddy Shepherd, Republican, Option A

My feelings is that the budget should generate a surplus in order to pay ourselves out of this massive debt. It does not need to be totally cleared, but it should be brought to a point that it could be handled and cleared (if necessary) within the term of a president if not the term of a Congress. The decision was not a difficult one to make once all the "smoke and mirrors" are cleared and the rabble is scuttled off to their camps. Neither Clinton nor Dole will do anything to significantly impact their own position regardless of whose elected.

President Dick King, Independent, Option B

President Tom Tucker, Republican, Option A

We simply can not borrow our selfs out of debt. Interest payments on our debt are killing us. We must retire this debt NOW or face a time when there is no money even to pay the interest!

President Phil Landon, Democrat, Option B

President Martha Bory, Independent, Option B

A hard decision, but necessary in light of current national situation. Less politically attractive - candidates will probably opt for the "cut the deficit" rhetoric instead.

President G.T. Gillmore, Independent, Option B

Plan to end the fiscal year with a balanced budget. If something goes wrong, then deal with it. Planning to overspend is foolishness!

President Katie Day, Democrat, Option B

President Allison Corey Moreland, Democrat, Option B

The Legislative and Executive Branches of the Federal government do not need an Amendment to the Constitution to belance the budget. The proposed Balanced-Budget Amendment (BBA) is nothing more than the Republicans in Congress blaming the Democrats for the many-times over-spent budget and attempting to put a leash on spending by forcing them to comply with the Mandate that would be the BBA. The United States does not need a BBA--only government representatives who will exercise restraint and se;f-control against the ever-popular (in their districts) pork barrel projects, whose only purpose is the re-election of the Representative or Senator in question.

President Chris Randolph, Republican, Option A

As any household knows, you cannot continuously borrow money year after year and still be able to afford the daily necessities. For some reason, the federal government has not learned this yet and continues to rack up both debt and interest. The deficit must be eliminated while still maintaining a strong national defense and providing for the less fortunate in this country. Sadly, many politicians are not willing to accept the political heat for backing a plan that will have to cut entitlement spending in order to provide for the masses. Decades of big government have not helped improve the living conditions for the poor in this country. Interest payments are taking up a larger percentage of the federal budget each year. Let's end this fatal trend, balance the budget, then decide how to care for the people with what remains. It is the only option that will enable the federal gov't to have ANY money to spend on something other than interest payments in the future.

President Dean Ekman, Republican, Option A

President Charles H. Riggs, III, Other, Option A

This was a decision made in ignorance. The memos were not helpful. I finally picked Option A, Learn from Reagan, but I'm not thrilled with the intellectual underpinning for my choice. More and more, it seems these days, decisions are based on whose data one believes, and because of that the valid arguments on both sides of the balanced budget question cancel each other out. I was forced therefore to view not the arguments, but the source of those arguments. The fact is that there is a growing chorus of pro-balanced budgeteers, from liberals like Illinois's retiring Senator Paul Simon, to conservatives like retiring Senator Alan Simpson, who have come to the conclusion that the argument of the ratio of deficit and debt size to that of the overall economy simply collapses when one looks at the chronic low growth and chronic high interest rates with which we are currently burdened. Perception is nine-tenths of reality where such indices are concerned, and a fiscally responsible approach to deficits and long-term debt would seem to be the only way in which growth rates will increase and interest rates will come down. Never mind the reality; there are good arguments in Option B; but the bottom line is that raising the growth rate and lowering interest rates involve persuading particular people (Alan Greenspan, would-be entrepreneurs, etc. etc.) that such actions are in theirs and the country's interest. And that persuasion will only be successful if we follow the holy grail of sound fiscal policy, and traditional pay-as-you-go ideology.

President kay johansen, Unregistered, Option A

President doug, Republican, Option A

President Susan Duhon, Democrat, Option B

The deficit has become a front for a different agenda. It is used to frighten people into accepting cuts in programs that they otherwise support. We should be debating these programs on their merits. When we reach a consensus on the merits of a program, then we can justify the funding (and taxes if necessary) or talk realistically about whether the cost is within our means.

President Thomas W. lamb, Democrat, Option B

Politicians can take your mind off really important issues such as health care, campaign reform, etc., just by harping on "balancing the budget"

President Dennis Schmidt, Independent, Option B

I found this a hard decision I belive strongly in a balanced budget but I also belive in the need for investment in education and the needs of socity I think we can make large cuts in our military to help we also need a means test for all funds spent.

President Paul Cotti, Independent, Option A

President Peter Hanley, Democrat, Option A

Growth in entitlement spending is unsustainable. It has the potential to ruin the economy as well as split us as a society. Workers of 2010-2030 will not pay what would be necessary to fund Social Security and Medicare as they are presently constituted. Interest on the national debt is already nearly the largest item in the Federal budget. We can reform these programs, protect those in our country who need them, and allow the young people of America to pursue happiness as previous generations have been able to do. But we must act now. A relatively minor cut in benefits for higher income people, those earning over $40K in retirement, will preserve the system.

President Gerald Lindahl, Independent, Option B

This was not a difficult decision. The government clearly has an obligation, in the name of "the general welfare", to stimulate the economy. If this can be done without damaging the economy, as now seems to be the case, all the better. Besides, there are actually solutions to this problem, and solutions which will cause little pain to the citizenry: 1) cut military spending in half; 2) raise the gasoline tax by $1.50; or even 3) do both. The defecit will be gone immediately, and the accumulated national debt can be chipped away as well.

President David Watta, Independent, Option B

The Atlantic Monthly is my favorite magazine. Thanks for letting me take part in the survey. I have nothing more to add.

Click here to return to the results for this scenario.

Return to this week's Executive Decision