The oil spill has taken all the press as of late. It's a crime that with all our technology and trillion-dollar navy,

this country can deal with an oil leak a mile below the water. That part of the world is a place of historical

importance and true American beauty. How can it be worse to drill for oil above ground in an isolated area in Alaska?

All of these issues are important, but what's going to really hurt the economy isn't an oil leak. 100% debt vs GDP in 2015 may sound like an up important issue. Imagine for a moment you made $50,000 each year. Each year you borrowed $50,000 dollars. Your justification is that you need the money to increase you salary in the coming years.

In the past couple of weeks, I've been finding articles, mostly from Europe, on America looming debt/deficit crisis. Our oversees friends seem more involved in our financial well being than we do. Our media really is just a reflection of what America is interesting in watching and reading at a particular part of time.

Thus, the fiscal crisis doesn't have a live camera showing plumes of oil leaking into the gulf or dead birds washing up in thick crude oil. If you following the debt crisis as i have for the past year, the money begin spent and borrowed would amount to 50 oil leaks in every ocean and sea around the world.

Imagine for a moment a Satellite photo of earth. In one small area of the Gulf of Mexico, there's a black area of oil about the size of Connecticut - a horrible image for a beautiful part of the world. Then imagine that a country's debt could be visualized with red ink flowing across the land based on that country's debt. A country with 100% debt vs GDP would result in red ink flowing across 100% of that country's land.

The satellite image would show that almost all the land in the entire world would be covered in 100% red. Not only would most countries be red, they'd be dark red because their debt is beyond 100% GDP vs. Debt. The photo would show a world with blue water, except in one tiny blackened area of Gulf, with red inked land almost everywhere.

Does it matter?

DeficitAid.com posted this article, below, found on the Wall Street Journal to point out the basic problem the American people have with Congress and it's ability to cut the deficit. This article, written by Steny Hoyer House Majority Leader, points out how difficult cutting the deficit will for Congress. Mandatory increases in entitlements are the main problem because they can't be cut. Thus, the only way to reduce the deficit is to raise taxes, but raising taxes on only the Americian's making over $250,000 per year isn't going to come close to solving the spending gap. The commission is going to recommend a huge tax increase on all American's.

Given the fact that there have been some extraordinary circumstances in the past few years, most American's are ready to swallow the bitter reality of smaller take home pay. What is most alarming about Mr. Hoyer's article and basic philosophy, which typifies the attitude in Congress, is the fact that he never discusses the idea of Congress living on a set budget. Why should he think that way? Congress is allowed to print as much money as they need to make up the deficit. They don't live in the real world of having a set amount of money to spend. Thus, they aren't put into a position of having to cut spending. The print and borrow more money on demand.

For example, the new Health Care laws, Mr. Hoyer sites in article, are predicted to cut the costs of The Health Care Entitlements Program. The cost setting measures in the bill are not based on a set budget. The costs savings are based on economic conditions that must happen in the future. If these predictions are wrong, the savings will not happen. Congress will be allowed to print more money to make up for getting bad info from their crystal ball.

On the other hand, when Congress raises taxes. The money is gone. This is an immediate here and now reality. American's don't get the money back if future economic conditions change. Congress asks the tax payer to make a difficult commitment to make less money, but Congress is not setting limits on what they can spend. The tax payer commits but congress doesn't. That's unfair!

This is what worries everyone in The United States. Citizens have to give up more of their paychecks, but Congress doesn't have to live on a set budget. If the new tax dollars don't reduce the deficits, they have the right to put the country into deeper debt by borrowing and printing more money. If that happens, Congress will be forced to come back to American public to ask again for more of their pay checks to cut the deficit.

Congress should be given a set amount of money to live on. It's called a budget. Make a law to do that first. Then come to the American Tax Payer to ask for more of their paycheck. Congress should show "us" they can live on a budget, and we will then give Congress more money. That's Fair!

Here's the article..

The big debate in Washington is how to fix Wall Street. Wall Street’s greed caused the financial collapse. Wall Street earns too much money. Wall Street is the root of the problem in “haves” and “have-nots”.

H.R. 4173, Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 is bill that the House Committee on Financial Services has written to fix the problems with Wall Street. The bill’s intention will be to avoid another financial meltdown. The Chairman of this committee is Congressman Barney Frank.

The highlights of the bill are as followed:

1) Consumer Protections: A new consumer protection agency, CFPA, to protect Americans from Wall Street. The sounds good, but the idea of Wall Street is based on speculating. No bill can protect the consumer from loosing money on a bad speculation. However, this new agency, CFPA, will create more deficit spending, increase the national debt and reduce America’s ability to compete.