"George" wrote in message ...

Simple analogy. You and your family decide to have a budget and you agree
to never borrow more than say $20,000/year (the "debt ceiling"). So now
this year one of your family members wants to go on an extravagant
vacation which would require that you borrow an additional $5,000. If you
adhere to your originally agreed borrowing limit you can still feed and
clothe yourselves and go on as usual only no extravagant vacation.

What that overlooks is that this allegorical family is already deep in debt
and if they don't make their mortgage payments the bank is going to
foreclose on their house and they'll be on the street, in other words not
paying money they already owe is not an option. So aside from cutting
spending wherever reasonable they also need to bring in more money if they
are ever going to get out of debt. For the family that means somebody might
need to get a part-time job, for Congress it means they need to increase tax
revenues if only by closing loopholes that some very well off folks (and
companies) use to avoid paying taxes.

Nobody likes the idea of paying more taxes, but the national debt is not
going to be paid down just with spending cuts (although clearly deep cuts
are needed). When Ronald Reagan became Governor of California he moved to
correct the state's finances in two ways--cutting spending *and* increasing
tax revenues. It is striking that today's Republicans refuse to consider
the second half of that formula.