It would be nice if there was a presidential ticket comprised of two people who are socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

It would be nice if there was a presidential ticket who supported the recommendations of the Simpson Bowles Commission. Paul Ryan was one of the commission members who wouldn't support the recommendations--he liked the spending cuts but not the tax increases. And President Obama was the president who wouldn't support his own commission's recommendations--he liked the tax increases but not the spending cuts.

It would be nice if there was a presidential ticket that was talking about reverting to late Clinton-era levels of taxation AND spending (the federal budget was more or less balanced at that time).

It would be nice if both sides would stop with the fear-mongering and lies. For example, Obamacare has some roots in conservative thinking; addressing the free-rider problem by compelling the purchase of health insurance is an idea that was originally pushed by conservative thinkers. And on the other side, a person who is credited with the first proposal of the Medicare premium support plan now championed by Paul Ryan was Stanford professor Alain Enthoven. Enthoven's proposal received some applause from the Carter Administration and was pushed by prominent democratic congressman Dick Gephardt (an excellent piece on this was in the WSJ today). So, contrary to the fear mongers on both sides, Barack Obama is not trying to destroy our country and our way of life, and neither is Paul Ryan. Both of their central healthcare ideas once had support (and/or originated) from the other side, but in this era of hyper-partisanship, no compromise or kind words for the other side are allowed.

It would be nice if the national debt under president Bush didn't increase from $5.6 trillion to $10.6 trillion in eight years (an obscene festival of spending), and it would be nice if the national debt under Obama didn't increase from $10.6 trillion to its current level of $15.9 trillion, in less than four years (an epic festival of spending).

But all this "would be nice" is not reality. Reality is a voting decision that I believe calls for voting for the lesser of two risks (and note, I am intentionally not using "lesser of two evils" because neither ticket is evil).

I believe that hemorrhagic federal spending is the defining issue of our time that makes or will make all other issues into sideshows. Look at Greece: with the country crumbling, most citizens cannot afford to be interested in any other issues besides fiscal and monetary ones. We are headed in that direction. "Things look ok at the moment, the water is getting nice," said the lobster in the pot before the water came to a boil.

I have read extensively about Ryan, including the vehement criticism from the left, including both of the big New Yorker articles this year--one was a litany of brutal and in many instances unfair criticism; the other was somewhat more fair and balanced. Also I have read the WSJ editorials praising Ryan, and also I have read in large part Ryan's Roadmap for America when it first came out. If you are one of those folks whose main source of information on Ryan is The New Yorker, or the New York Times, or other liberal publications, I strongly urge you to read editorials about Ryan in The Wall Street Journal, and/or Ryan's own writings.

For those supporting Obama, I would urge you to "check your premises," which is a refrain from Atlas Shrugged, the novel that is back in the headlines due to Paul Ryan's interest in it. Specifically, check your fiscal premises. Inherent in Obama's long-term plan is the premise that we can spend more than we take in, indefinitely, without significant consequence. That's a faulty premise. What do I base that on? It's page 62 of this document called

ANALYTICAL PERSPECTIVES
BUDGET OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Before I get to what it says, it's important to understand the source. This is from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is part of the Executive Office of the President. The top six folks in OMB are all political appointees, NOT non-partisan budget wonks. Consequently, Obama and his people have their hands firmly on this document and accordingly, I think the budget projections are optimistic. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that their projections are actually achieved. As you can see, Obama's own OMB is projecting that total Federal Debt will be $20.6 trillion in 2016, and by 2021, $26.3 trillion. These numbers are truly alarming and are reason alone to not support Obama.

When we get to that size debt, the only way out is to monetize. To those folks who say, "the US wouldn't monetize," I say, "bad news, we already are." That is, we are monetizing our debt through the Fed's quantitative easing program (the fancy way of saying "printing money"). The Federal Reserve's balance sheet showed $2.9 trillion of assets at the end of 2011 (mostly comprised of government securities purchased by the Fed, by literally creating money out of keystrokes on their computers). This is compared to assets of $609 billion at the end of 2000--a 4.8x increase in 11 years. Monetizing always ends badly, as lenders demand higher interest and a vicious feedback loop ensues.

Here's a couple key problems with having $26.3 trillion in debt: (a) it would take 130 years of $200 billion annual surpluses to pay it all back (without monetizing); and (b) much more immediately, interest: the average rate on federal debt since 1960 has been 6.7%, with the high being 15.3%. Right now we are in an interest rate environment technically known as "crazy low," with the 10-year treasury note at 1.65%. This will not last and if we revert to the 6.7% average, the annual interest on $26.3 trillion would be $1.7 trillion. If we achieve the 15.3% interest rate again (and it could even go higher if lenders start to balk), then the annual interest bill would be $4 trillion. By comparison, the the highest level of government receipts we have ever had in a single year was 2007, when we took in $2.6 trillion (and btw, we spent $2.7 trillion that year).

Congratulations if you have made it this far. I am disappointed that I will be voting for a ticket whose stands on abortion and gay marriage are opposite mine, and whose fiscal plans I don't fully agree with (for example, I would would cut some defense department spending; Romney and Ryan don't plan to). However, I think that the time to address this economic elephant in the room is now, well before it becomes a full-blown crisis like in Greece. There you have it; I am guessing that all but one of my readers will disagree with me, and I welcome your comments.