Month: March 2025

As we continue to navigate the murky waters of fact, opinion and perspective — and yes, murky because we oft confuse the three — some subjects become more challenging to discuss. In fact, I saw a meme this week that prompted me pause; it metaphorically suggested that the weatherman’s job isn’t to present the options of both rain and shine; it’s to look out the window and see which one is true. Granted, the poster didn’t acknowledge that if you look out a different window in another direction, one might see something that’s different but also true at the exact same time.

Allow us, therefore, a brief review of the above three factors, almost always in play…

fact | fak(t) | – noun — a thing that is known or proved to be true: he ignores some historical and economic facts | a body of fact.

opinion | əˈpiny(ə)n | – noun — a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge: I’m writing to voice my opinion on an issue of great importance | that, in my opinion, is dead right.

perspective | pərˈspektiv | – noun — a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view: most guidebook history is written from the editor’s perspective.

Preference and conviction also play a role in the visibility of our murky waters, but for purposes of brevity in this conversation we will rely on fact (what is true), opinion (what we think is true), and perspective (the direction we look in for truth, shaped by our individual experience).

In our blogging existence, we’ve addressed this issue multiple times from multiple angles, and yet, we still mess with the murky; we still each fall prey to mixing up each of the above. And because we feel deeply, passionately, emphatically, we convince ourselves that we are ever discerning of which is which… when we’re not.

Hence, to address once more, we decided to employ a new, creative, original angle… 

How and why we mistake the above…

… including an admission of our blind spot and why that’s a problem…

“Fact, Opinion and Perspective,” all courtesy of the one and only ChatGPT…

We mix them up because it’s easy to do,
When we talk about truths, it’s all blurred through.
Sometimes we say “I think” and then we get loud,
And people start thinking that we’re speaking proud.

When we mistake a fact for an opinion’s claim,
It can lead to confusion, and no one’s to blame.
But if we confuse perspective with solid proof,
It can lead to arguments that don’t have a roof.

The blind spot appears when we don’t see the twist,
When we confuse what’s real with what’s on our list.
If we call opinions facts, we’re sure to mislead,
And forget that perspectives are not a creed.

Not realizing we’re mixing them up—oh, that’s the trap!
It leaves us in loops, caught in a gap.
So, next time you speak, be sure to define,
Is it a fact, an opinion, or perspective you’re trying to shine?

Here’s to unmurkying the waters… and also making difficult subjects easier to discuss.

Respectfully…

AR

In recent weeks there has been renewed conversation about the U.S. Dept. of Education in regard to its purpose, efficiency and even existence. Pres. Donald Trump signed an Executive Order directing the Sec. of Education to facilitate the closure of the Department and return education authority to the states, while continuing to ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely. In order to discuss this issue intelligently, know that today’s post will serve neither as advocacy of nor opposition to elimination; call it more of a fact-finding mission, attempting to actually be better educated, as opposed to being swayed by fervent rhetoricians. 

The Dept. of Education was created in 1867 by Pres. Andrew Johnson for the purpose of collecting information and statistics about the nation’s schools. One year later, due to concerns about the potential for excessive federal control over local schools, the Department was demoted to an Office of Education, operating under the Dept. of the Interior. 

Fast forward a century plus, when Pres. Jimmy Carter established the modern U.S. Dept. of Education as a cabinet-level agency. It became operational the next year with the stated mission to supplement state education efforts, coordinate federal education activities, ensure equal access to educational opportunities, and improve the management and efficiency of federal education activities. According to Carter, the goal was not to control schools and universities but rather to advise and assist them.

Interestingly, the calls to eliminate the Department came immediately after Carter’s tenure, with Pres. Ronald Reagan calling for the elimination of the agency in his 1982 State of the Union address. His primary goal was to reduce the growth of federal spending, believing the nation was in an economic “slump” and in need of strategic recovery. So why the back-and-forth that has continued through multiple administrations and generations? 

Let’s acknowledge the complicating pieces. First, in the U.S., education is primarily the responsibility of states and local districts. The Constitution does not mention any role for the federal government in education, and according to the Tenth Amendment, anything not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states to decide. 

Let us next examine what the Department does, discerning what’s unique/what’s not. In accordance with the Department’s stated above purpose…

• They routinely collect data on education facilities across the nation.
• They manage federal special ed programs, including oversight of IEPs and 504 plans, as established through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
• They offer programs like the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast program, offering meals to students.
• They provide free preschool for children from low income families.
• They employ their own civil rights office.
• They enforce Title VI (which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin) and Title IX (which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs or activities). 
• They work to reduce perceived education inequalities between states.
• They attempt to ensure education in areas of extreme poverty are not neglected.
• They manage federal student loans under FSA (Federal Student Aid), including Pell Grants and work-study programs, currently managing a portfolio of approximately $1.5 trillion; they are the largest source of loans for college students.

Let us next acknowledge the cost. With the smallest staff of the 15 federal Cabinet agencies, the Department has the third largest discretionary budget. Their budget for 2024 was $268 billion — $254 billion more than when it was established. One metric often examined is how much this equates to on a per student basis.

Summarily, the agency has spent over $3 trillion in its existence. The back-and-forth elimination question thus seems to stem from two primary questions: (1) does it take this much money? … and (2) is this something most efficient at a federal level? Would the states do a better job at being effective?

After much research and speaking to a few career education experts (of varied political persuasion) this debate seems not necessarily a case of right/wrong or solely one correct answer. There is far more to ask and discern. I especially appreciate the experts’ respectful admonition to learn more about actual outcomes tied to expenditures.

I appreciate the experts’ excellent questions… how do we ensure education in areas of extreme poverty is not neglected? How do we ensure our kids with special needs are not forsaken? How do we continue to invest in all of our kids? What do the states need to do differently? What if some states don’t do education well? What happens if local districts lose current, relied-upon funding? Can we truly discern the educational outcomes tied to federal expenditures?

Hence… is an option to minimize as opposed to eliminate? Is there a way to be more efficient with the dollars we spend? And who is best to do what? The state, local or federal government?

There’s a reason this debate has persisted for decades; there are lots of questions. Sounds like time to sincerely ask, sedulously examine, and shrewdly answer.

Respectfully…

AR

Years ago I had a friend who was hosting a frolicking trip south for a limited number of couple friends. The weekend was to be epic — full of all sorts of fun, intentional festivity, flowing food and drink. Something about the allure of South Beach made it extra enticing. It was indeed going to be wonderful.

I showed up at her house when she was packing the day before, wanting to add some extras to her bag, adding to the weekend festivities. I was so excited to celebrate with her. Let me also be clear: my spouse and I were not invited.

Such was a really good lesson for me…

Did I wish to go on the trip, too?

Indeed!

Could I have made all the logistics work?

Totally.

But was it ok to not be invited?

Absolutely.

Hear me out here…

One of the things I think our culture is not especially good at is celebrating other people and other people’s good fortune. Too often we look at the success, blessing, and/or prosperousness of another and think that’s not fair… they don’t deserve it… or… some of that should be mine…

And if we’re not included in the good fortune of the other, we lead with judgment, jealousy or our own self-entitlement. That clearly is so not so good and right and true. It’s not healthy nor virtuous either.

One of the healthiest things adulthood has taught me is to celebrate the wins of other people.

Hear, no less, the words of Jerry Hayden, a professional team builder and problem solver, who echoed my learnings on LinkedIn this past winter:

“As leaders, professionals, and individuals striving to reach our own goals, we often get caught up in the hustle of our personal achievements. The next milestone, the next deal, the next promotion – these are the things that keep us focused, moving forward, and striving for success. But if we step back for a moment and think about what true success looks like, one of the most powerful markers isn’t just about what we accomplish ourselves. It’s about how we celebrate and support the wins of others.

In a world that often emphasizes competition, it can feel challenging to genuinely cheer for others’ victories. We may worry that someone else’s success diminishes our own, or that we’ll somehow be left behind. But this mindset is not only limiting – it’s also counterproductive. The ability to celebrate other people’s success isn’t a sign of weakness or insecurity; it’s a sign of strength, wisdom, and emotional intelligence. It’s also a mark of true leadership.” (Emphasis mine.)

As we continue to tiptoe through a culture in which equity and equality are routinely confused for one another, it would indeed seem wise if we could first learn to pause and genuinely celebrate the good fortune of another for what it actually is: theirs. It is no less good fortune even though it is not mine.

As Hayden concludes, “In the end, life isn’t just about individual triumphs – it’s about the collective growth we experience when we celebrate each other’s wins.”

Cheers, friends. Here’s to one another.

Respectfully…

AR

One of the things I most love about this time of year is that the madness isn’t really madness. While it’s oft crazy amid the rampant upsets and improbable three point shots, it also happens to be one of the best, authentic celebrations of difference and diversity.

We root for all sorts of teams, regardless of what we have in common…

We cheer for the good story, regardless of who they represent…

And we openly admire ability, even when it’s on the other team.

Oh, how fun is March Madness!

In this year’s field of 68, with 4 having to “play their way in,” we see all sorts of people groups, animal representations and creative monikers. Some stand out more than others…

We start with the Aztecs and both of the Aggies. I do always wonder what an Aggie is exactly.

Then come the Ursidae, otherwise known as the bear family via the Bears, Bruins and Grizzlies. Be sure not to confuse them with the feline family portal that the Panthers, pair of Wildcats, all 3 Cougar teams and 4 Tiger teams represent. 

If you’re wondering (as I was), the Wolverines are members of the family Mustelidae; interestingly, a most minor Google search will reveal that their scientific animal name is Gulo gulo, meaning “glutton.” This, too, includes the Badgers, meaning Michigan and Wisconsin have more in common than they may like.

While we’re on the animals, let’s add a few more… there are 2 Rams; both they and the Bisons hail from the family Bovidae.

And the reptiles… the Gators seem dominant this year, but in their bracket are also the far-more-than-amphibious Terrapins. For the record (mostly because I simply find it entertaining), a Terrapin is “a small edible turtle.” Hoping no one actually eats them on the court.

Let’s not, however, forget the fowl… the Bluejays, Cardinals and Jayhawks… not to be outdone by the Ducks, Eagles and Golden Eagles. And Seahawks? What’s a Seahawk? It’s not a real bird, friends.

Other animals in this year’s tournament? Dogs bark via the Huskies, Terriers and 6 sets of Bulldogs. There are horses and cows and Longhorns and Sooners. Still we find the Hornets and Razorbacks… can’t say I’m a fan of either.

Then come the weather fronts, which always delight me — this year represented by the Cyclones and Red Storm. Colorful monikers follow — the Crimson Tide, Red Flash, Red Raiders and Blue Devils. Sorry, I can’t root for the devil no matter what color he shows up as.

The regal reps are also interesting, from the Colonials and Commodores to the Tritons and Trojans… in addition to the ethnically-identified Illini, Gaels, and 2 sets of Spartans.

Bravery, too, abounds in the tournament — or at least it’s projected in the Mavericks and Musketeers. I have a place in my heart for the Rebels, as well… as long as they know when to fight and when to congratulate the other team.

Also interesting are the Tarheels and (my beloved) Boilermakers. Did you know that each of their names were originally designed to be derogatory? Seems like their success on the court has long surpassed any sustaining insult.

Somewhere in here should be the Cowboys, Mountaineers and Volunteers; each seems both respectful and respected.

But our final shout out for this year’s tourney goes to the small but mighty Lobos, Lopes and Zips; it’s just fun to say their names. (Did you know that the Zips hail from the “Rubber Capital of the World”?)

Love the diversity, underdogs and healthy competition. Love, too, when we can all celebrate the same thing. Indeed… let the madness begin!

Respectfully…

AR

And then there was this… allow us to share as factually as possible…

A little less than 2 weeks ago, at the Virginia State High School League indoor track and field state championships, in the girls’ 4 x 200m relay final, Brookfield High junior Kaelen Tucker was rounding a corner during the second leg. The competition was close.

She is originally behind I.C. Norcom High School senior Alaila Everett. When Tucker passes Everett, the stereotypical, by-your-side rhythmic swinging motion of the baton changes, wherein Everett instead pulls the baton behind her back, lifts it, and proceeds to strike Tucker on the head in the lane next to her. (See entire video HERE.) Tucker would fall to the ground, soon to be diagnosed with a concussion and possible skull fracture. Everett’s team was quickly disqualified.

As the video went viral last week, Alaila Everett was charged with one count of assault and battery, in the City of Lynchburg’s Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.   

There are multiple angles with which to approach the incident; let us begin with the range of reaction…

… shock, dismay, speechlessness. Granted, some have not been speechless, using their words to demean, saying some awful, terrible things. 

Note, also, Everett insists it was an accident. 

She said that their proximity prompted her to lose her balance, turn her body, pump her arms, and inadvertently hit Tucker. Interviewing with multiple news sources, Everett expounds upon why it was an unfortunate accident:

”My community knows my character… they know I’m not like that… I can admit from the video it does look purposeful, but I know my intentions, and I would never hit somebody on purpose because of jealousy… I would never harm anybody. I’m not a fighter. I’m not even confrontational. I wouldn’t even do that on purpose.”

Some, therefore, have used to their words to defend…

Said Everett’s mother, “My baby didn’t do it. I know who I raised…”

Said the local NAACP President, “She is not an attacker. Alaila is an honor student at Norcom High School. We are not going to sit back and allow the criminal justice system to define her.”

After being served with the assault charge, a public rally was held late last week to reiterate Everett’s innocence.

What a terrible situation.  

Allow us, no less, to share two more angles that we believe to be significant.

First, sometimes it seems we craft this insulated idea that either we or another is incapable of doing something really wrong or bad… “There is no way they could do that… that’s not possible… I know them..”

Friends, with sincere, all due respect, that makes no sense to me. We may have the most wonderful credentials, full of honors and accolades, but given the wrong circumstances at the right time in an unhealthy, emotional headspace — something we are indeed each capable of — bad things could happen. Are they likely? No. Could they happen? Yes. Are we each capable of doing the shocking and unspeakable? Absolutely.

Secondly, the question here is intent. None of us know what was inside the head of Alaila Everett at that moment; none of us know what her emotional headspace was like. Not her parents, not her opponent, not the head of the local NAACP. I understand the decision to believe her. After watching the video multiple times, I also understand the decision not to. The reality is, whatever we each decide, we cannot know with certainty.

A trusted friend encouraged me years ago to resist the urge to make the uncertain certain. That’s not always easy. It’s also not very convenient. Still it’s oft the wisest thing to do.

Respectfully…

AR

We each have opportunity to learn from all things, from likely and unlikely sources. It depends most on if we are open to learning.

There’s a long repeated biblical story, that whether I believed in the word or not, challenges me to the core. I pray there’s never a day that I go unchallenged by the account; if so, my strong sense is it is me who is impervious to the learning.

The story goes something like this…

Jesus returned to the Mount of Olives, but early the next morning he was back again at the Temple. A crowd soon gathered, and he sat down and taught them. As he was speaking, the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They put her in front of the crowd.

“Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

“No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”

Allow us to briefly acknowledge the significant components of the story…

A woman had done something wrong; there was no debate that adultery was wrong.

A crowd had gathered; that means everyone’s actions would be seen by someone else… perhaps a tribe in some ways that all thought alike. No doubt crowds tend to egg each other on, often ramping up emotion and activity.

The crowd attempted to egg on the perceived arbiter of truth in this situation… But what she did was wrong! There is no dispute! How will she be punished?!

In wise judgment, there was calm.

And then it was said… if you have done no wrong, go ahead… punish her… be loud… make it a public spectacle… It’s insightful how once again it’s poignantly clear we are loudest when we believe ourselves clean from the crime. We point fast fingers at those who have done wrong in areas we feel we are absolved, ignoring the places where we have been foolish, fallacious or illicit…

… actually forgetting those places exist.

And here’s the thing. Sometimes that’s been me. I have said some things I’d like to take back — even this week. The errors of my ways, so-to-speak, are not just nice neat, cleaned up stories from my youth. The errors of my ways occur even now.

So allow me to close with two outstanding truths — and why this account is so challenging whether we are Jesus followers or not…

There was no question the woman was wrong; there was no debate. The crowd was right; she was wrong. Note, too, that as the crowd dispersed, she was compassionately called to change her behavior and inherent line of thinking.

But what’s also true based on the wisdom revealed, is that I will never be capable of throwing that first stone, that rock of condemnation, if you will, whether physically or verbally. I can’t do so unless I ignore the equally existent, imperfect parts of me.

That’s the reality we must grapple with now, if we are willing to learn.

Respectfully…

AR

BUMBLE, bramble, which came first, sir
Eggs or chickens? Who can tell?
I’ll never believe that the first egg burst, sir,
Before its mother was out of her shell.

— By children’s author Mary Mapes Dodge in 1875

Long before Dodge came the contemplation of Aristotle, thought to be the first to publicly ponder the perplexity of which came first: the chicken or the egg.

As he wrote in his Historia Animalum (aka “History of Animals):

“If there was a first man, he must have been born without father or mother — which is repugnant to nature. For there cannot have been a first egg to give rise to birds, nor can there have been a first bird that gave rise to eggs, for a bird comes from an egg.”

As noted by Aristotle’s struggles, there has been a centuries long lack of consensus. Chickens hatch eggs but also come out of eggs. So which happened first? 

The root of the paradox is that it’s difficult to determine the origin of something. We may have theories as to how something has originated, but theories are inexact and open to interpretation. Interpretation can indeed be subjective.

So why in the world would a current events blog share a post on an ancient paradox?

What value is there in discussing this here?

Let me humbly attempt to articulate why this topic seemingly fits well here today…

Chickens are intelligent animals. They learn from each other and are believed to be decently self-aware. Noting numbers over 33 billion, the birds outnumber the human population on the planet. They are a fascinating fowl, and not only that, but they are an extremely popular food choice, especially in that they are an affordable protein source that can be prepared in all sorts of ways. They have great value.

Eggs vary pending the species. Their color, shape and structure come in all sorts of forms. Besides carrying a future, living, breathing animal, eggs have so many benefits for humans — brain health, heart health, eye health, muscle growth and repair, immune system support, weight management and more. There are so many benefits.

The bottom line is that both the chicken and the egg are distinct. They are real. No one doubts what they are nor their existence. Hence, in a conclusion that may frustrate trivia game lovers, it doesn’t matter which of the two came first. It changes nothing. The chicken and the egg can still be acknowledged for what they are.

The reason we write this post is that recently, we’ve been acknowledging significant impudent behavior on all sides of all sorts of subjects in the socio-economic, political sphere. We’ve pointed out the insolence and incivility all over the place.

The strangely fascinating aspect that exists it seems, is that persons attempt to justify their insolence and incivility on the grounds that the other side did it first.

Here at the Intramuralist, we suggest the chicken and egg analogy applies…

It doesn’t matter.

How to win friends and influence people never employs disrespect. In fact, as said in multiple places about the iconic self-help author, Dale Carnegie, one of the core ideas he promoted was that it actually is possible to change other people’s behavior. However, it starts by changing our behavior toward them.

Chicken? Egg? Yep… doesn’t matter.

Respectfully…

AR

Most every year in our 16 year existence, the Intramuralist has published sort of a “state of the government” post to accompany the official State of the Union (SOTU). It’s ok if you didn’t watch last night; while we strive to watch every national address by every President regardless of party, it’s hard to pay attention to politics these days, for multiple reasons, many that were emphatically on display last night.

Also, to be clear, last night’s speech was not technically a SOTU address. It was officially an address to a joint session of Congress in the early weeks of a new president’s tenure; such is a tradition Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump (45) and Joe Biden each previously followed.

Regardless, no less, of the title of the early year, annual address — and regardless, too, of who has what level of control — regardless, even of party — our assessment of state has been continually summarized as too partisan, too influenced by money, too big, too financially imbalanced, and too far removed from the Constitution. 

This has been true for way too long.

But after witnessing last night’s address — and in my opinion, the embarrassing behavior by multiple members of both parties — we have a new summarizing statement:

The state of the government’s elected lawmakers is unhealthy.

Such was obvious almost immediately from last night’s address…

With all the stand ups, sit downs, jeers, cheers, brags, bravado, sulking and celebration, sometimes I felt like I was back in a junior high gym… minus only the acne, perhaps.

(And before someone attempts to suggest how all of one side’s behavior was completely acceptable, they will have to substantiate why it’s sagacious to wear a hat saying “Trump was right about everything” or to refuse to stand when a 13 year old cancer survivor was having the night of his life. Please. Grown adults can act better than we did in junior high.)

I indeed wish it was better. I wish it was healthier. I wish our elect spent more time problem solving, choosing humility over hubris and collaboration over blame. I wish we knew more what they are for rather than who they are against. I wish they worked together.

I wish the elect treated one another better, learning how to disagree without denigration, learning how to shake hands regardless of agreement.

“How can we make our politics reflect what’s best in us, and not what’s worst?” 

Such were the words of one of our three most recent presidents in his final SOTU address (I’ll refrain from sharing his name, as many will only accept the above pending who said it).

Friends, we certainly do not have all the answers. I don’t believe one person or party has all the answers either. Each has had their chance.

If our politics are thus to reflect the best in us, my strong sense is it won’t start via power or policy or partisanship or thinking one party is all right, one party is all wrong, and turning a blind eye to the malfeasance of the other. That malfeasance exists.

My equally strong sense is that if our politics are going to reflect the best of us, we need to be healthier… especially in how we treat each other. That was the problem on display last night in my opinion — how grown adults were so obviously callow with one another.

We are healthier when we commit to treating all people with respect, kindness and dignity.

Allow us to add a most important insight: disagreement is not dissolved when respect, kindness or dignity are offered.

Respect, kindness and dignity only make it so that those who disagree with you can actually hear what you have to say. I thought that’s what we want.

My deep desire, friends, is to actually take some productive next steps, if possible… treating each other better, making the government healthier, and staying out of those junior high gyms.

Respectfully…

AR

In November of 1991, Dan Gookin published the first of what would become a popular, acceptably-insulting series. DOS For Dummies was edition #1 of the educational insult, selling just 7,500 copies 34 years ago. But as the series branched out to more general-interest titles and topics (having now included everything from Chess, Fishing and Olive Oil to Pit Bulls and Captain America), the series has grown in popularity. But how does an embedded insult become so popular?

Writes publisher John Wiley & Sons: “Dummies has always stood for taking on complex concepts and making them easy to understand. Dummies helps everyone be more knowledgeable and confident in applying what they know. Whether it’s to pass that big test, qualify for that big promotion or even master that cooking technique; people who rely on dummies, rely on it to learn the critical skills and relevant information necessary for success.”

In other words, it’s ok to admit what we do not know — even wise to. It would be silly, in fact, to think we would have a working knowledge of all things. Hence, “dummy” is not actually an insult; it’s an admission that we have more to learn. 

In light, no less, of the federal government’s current budget prioritization — and a debate about the prudence of their approach is certainly worthy — one complex concept that would be helpful for us dummies to more fully understand is our national debt. We all could learn more; the hope is to have both comprehension of the issue and compassion for those who are impacted. 

The national debt is the total amount of money the federal government owes, meaning borrowed money plus interest. Also known as the federal debt or public debt, it’s the sum of all the federal government has borrowed over time to cover its expenses. When the government spends more than it takes in, it has to borrow money to cover the deficit. Each year’s deficit adds to our debt.

The money is borrowed from sources both foreign and domestic. It’s borrowed from individuals and institutions. It’s also borrowed from foreign governments. While the majority of our debt is held by domestic holders, our dependency on foreign lenders has increased significantly in recent decades, now surpassing 30%. As for foreign governments, we owe over a trillion dollars to Japan, with China, the UK and Luxembourg close behind. 

Some other significant points to aid in our comprehension:

• The current debt is over $36 trillion dollars.
• It grows by approximately $1 trillion ever 100 days — or $10 billion per day.
• If every American paid an equal share of the debt, we’d each pay over $106,000.
• The last year the federal government did not have a deficit, adding to the debt, was 2001.
• The Clinton administration was the last administration to utilize a balanced budget.
• The more we borrow, the more we pay in interest.
• Every day, we spend $2.6 billion on interest.
• Interest is the fastest growing part of the federal budget; imagine a huge credit card bill that never gets paid off.
• In ten years, interest will nearly double from where it is today.
• A low debt-to-GDP ratio demonstrates a country’s ability to pay back debt; 60% is often cited as healthy. The US’s debt-to-GDP ratio was most recently reported to be 123%.
• Rising debt can lead to erosion of confidence in the US dollar.
• 79% of voters* say they want the President and congress to spend more time addressing the national debt.

The zillion dollar question, therefore, (or at least $36 trillion one) is when does our debt level become unsustainable? Lawmakers keep kicking the can (and each other) down the road, so-to-speak, never solving the issue, as it’s not popular to cut payments and programs various ones of us have gotten used to and/or depend upon. Additionally, two of the biggest budget expenditures — Social Security and Medicare — operate at such a significant deficit, that each is projected to face insolvency in the next dozen years. Each is mandatory in the budget — meaning, if not addressed, mandatory spending will soon trigger additional mandated borrowing.

Clearly, the rate at which the debt is growing is unsustainable. Penn Wharton, the business school at the University of Pennsylvania, believes a “best case scenario” is that “under current policy, the United States has about 20 years for corrective action after which no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly.”

True, too — and sad, in my opinion — is that politicians who sincerely strive to address this issue are often demonized by their opponents. On one hand I understand. Cuts are hard; they have the potential to hurt people. Hence, compassion for who and how people are impacted is necessary.

Simultaneously, comprehension of the consequences of this issue is also necessary…

For far more than us dummies.

Respectfully…

AR

[Notes: “GDP” stands for Gross Domestic Product, which is the total value of goods and services produced in a certain time. *Also, sources utilized include but are not limited to The Balance, Penn Wharton, The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, Tax Foundation, and the U.S. Treasury Dept.]