Sen. James Lankford on why Trump must engage more with the deficit problem

Senator James Lankford (R- OK) has issued an urgent plea to the Trump administration: start taking the national deficit seriously or else the nation could slip into irrevocable fiscal failure down the line.

In a revealing conversation on this week’s OppCast, Lankford lamented that the national debt was almost entirely absent as a talking point during the whole of the presidential campaign.

“There was no conversation, Republican or Democrat,” Lankford said. “But I try to tell people, if we were actually able to get our budget balanced within ten years – which would require us to be very aggressive, but we can manage that in ten years – and if we could manage to build up a $50 billion surplus each year, it would take us 460 years in a row of having that $50 billion annual surplus just to pay off our current debts.”

“So anyone who thinks this is a simple problem,” Lankford added, “needs to understand how bad the debt has really become, and how hard this will be.”

But what can be done to fix it?  This week on OppCast, we break down why Trump must lead the way to bring our nation out from under a mountain of debt.

Subscribe to OppCast by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Published in: Politics

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There is 1 comment.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Icarus213 Coolidge

    Not to be too cynical about this topic, but after listening to Ellen’s interview I just am not convinced that the Senator’s plan is going to come anywhere near to doing anything to balance the budget, since his focus on government duplication just couldn’t possibly add up to enough to close the deficit gap.  The perennial problem with balancing the budget is that neither party wants to reform entitlements, and the GOP doesn’t want to cut VA or defense spending.  Those three things are the overwhelming majority of the budget.  Are we really going to find enough redundancy in government departments to make a big dent in spending, such that we won’t have to seriously reform the big ticket items?

    Lankford’s comments seem to imply that our problem is that we just can’t see the details of government spending.  I just don’t think that is the problem.  The problem is that the largest expenditures are also the most politically impossible to touch, so both parties kick the can.  I see no reason why the next four years will be any different.

    • #1
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.