Reader believes it is a revenue problem

The idea of "limited government" is appealing in the abstract, but not in concrete terms.

The worst-case scenario: Around Aug. 3, some people the federal government owes money to will stop getting paid.

Roughly $23 billion worth of Social Security checks are scheduled to be cut on Aug. 3, but only $12 billion in tax revenues is projected to come in that day.

Also scheduled for Aug. 3 are the following:

* $1.4 billion defense vendors

* $1.8 billion Dept. of Education

* $600 million federal salaries/benefits, including veterans

* $2.2 billion Medicare/Medicaid

* $1.4 billion Food/HUD/welfare/unemployment

* $100 million IRS refunds

* $1.5 billion other spending

Federal courts, federal law enforcement agencies, the highway administration, EPA. health and human services, private government contractors, Department of Energy, Small Business Administration, Department of Labor, and $52 billion in smaller programs would no longer be funded. No federal traffic controllers - no airline flights.

Businesses would pay more to borrow cash to operate. American households would be hit with much higher interest payments.

The interest the government will have to pay on its outstanding debt will be significantly higher, which would result in hundreds of billions of dollars in higher debt costs - driving up federal spending.

In 1950, my father made $1 an hour as a carpenter-lather. Our population has grown over 50 percent since 1950. Between 2009 and this year, the federal government will have collected the lowest share of our economic output in taxes annually since 1950 (we have a revenue problem, not a spending "crisis").

If we had an honest debate over the debt limit, and the real-world consequences of not raising it, it's hard to imagine anyone being in favor of letting the U.S. government go into default.

Carol Rae

Moses Lake