BEFORE SUNRISE

Director: RICHARD LINKLATER

Cast: ETHAN HAWKE, JULIE DELPY

Screenplay: RICHARD LINKLATER & KIM KRIZAN

Music: FRED FRITH

Run Time: 105 min.

(1995)

Boy meets girl.  A perfect first date.

A first date, if long and interesting enough, can tell you a lot about the other person.  For some reason when two people genuinely connect, they share a lot on initial dates. Perhaps it is the promise of a new pristine relationship that emboldens one to bare oneself honestly.  Or perhaps one is caught up in the emotion of an auspicious beginning and doesn't care about portraying oneself in any particular light.  Writer-director Linklater's experimental movie takes us along on a lovely first date between two young twenty-somethings, Jesse and Celene.

It is 1994, Bloomsday (16th June, the day James Joyce met his future wife Nora and walked the streets of Dublin) when Jesse and Celene happen to come across each other on a train headed to Vienna. There is an initial spark between the two and he convinces her to get off the train in Vienna and spend time with him till sunrise, when he has to catch a flight to the states.  We then follow the two strolling around in Vienna having interesting and diverse conversations as they get to know each other... and we get to know them. 

Linklater wisely chose his characters to be in their twenties instead of teenagers.  This is not a teenage rom-com.  These are characters that have already been through their teen years and have just entered into maturity.  They are still young and idealistic (perhaps somewhat pretentious to some) but have well-formed notions and ideas. Their conversations range from topics of love and life to spirituality.  The script is extremely well written and the discussions are very engaging.  The pace is unhurried but there is no lull in the movie.

Jesse has been touring Europe and is fresh off a break-up with his girlfriend, which is the reason why he is on his own and headed back home.  Celeste is returning to Paris from a visit to her grandmother in Budapest.  He comes across as an intelligent, charming and perhaps a little unsure young man.  She, on the other hand, is smart, confident and somewhat feisty.  Both are very attractive and intriguing young persons and we don't mind spending time with them.

There is a quiet yet powerful chemistry between the two leads and Linklater allows this to develop without rushing it.  We catch them stealing glances at the other when one is not looking, especially in a scene at a record store (remember those?) listening to music.  There is a moment when one reaches out and almost brushes the hair from the the other's face because it just seems so familiar.  They talk about nothing in particular but lay out interesting thoughts.  What if the human soul is just a fragment of the original soul and as we multiply further, it get further fragmented?  Is that why we are so scattered and specialized?  Isn't everything we do in life a way to be loved a little more?  Why is it that a dog sleeping in the sun is beautiful but a man standing at a bank machine is mundane?

 

The night slowly builds towards the inevitable sunrise when the two have to go their separate ways and the magical night must end.   While there  is no climax which might seem contrived or forced, the impending moment looms throughout the night.  The movie works primarily because of the two leads.  Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy have an effortless chemistry and their conversations seem less scripted and more adlibbed.  Linklater does a great job of involving the city of Vienna as a silent performer in the narrative. 

 

Clearly, we find it difficult to part with these characters and want to accompany them beyond sunrise.  It is a remarkable feat by an adventurous director and makes for a very memorable movie.
 

GRIFFIN & SABINE

An Extraordinary Correspondence

Making a case for tactile books in a digital world

Griffin Moss, an artist living in London, receives an intriguing postcard from Sabine Strohem commenting on a concept for one of his cards (Drinking like a fish).  It should not be in the least bit unusual for an artist to receive some reflection on his artwork.  But, Griffin does not know who Sabine is.  Moreover, Griffin has never shared his concept for the card with anyone.  So, how does someone from a remote island in the Pacific know this?

Drinking like a fish

This is how one of the finest epistolary books begins. The book is a collection of postcards and letters sent by these two characters to each other.  Each page shows the postcard artwork on one side and upon turning the page, one can read the message.  In case of letters, one face of the page shows the front of an envelope and upon turning the page, one finds an envelope that can be opened to pull out a letter as shown below.


Envelope



Letter on following page

There is a narrative element which is interesting on its own but the form takes it to another level.  Without the accoutrement, this would make for a nice little short story.  But by having the letters and postcards, it offers an almost voyeuristic pleasure.  It also serves as means to making the story and the characters a little more intimate to the reader.  There is a certain delight in going through the envelopes and pulling out the letters as you progress through the story.  This is one aspect where the digital medium cannot compete and falls short.

The artwork on each postcard and each letter is excellent.  Since the communication takes place between someone living in London and the other person living on a fictitious island, it gives Bantock the liberty to create some new stamps.  The artwork on the postcards is attributed to the two characters and largely, the artwork on each communication ties in to the message.  This enhances the narrative flow and pulls the story together.

A concept such as this was bound to be successful, and it was.  This has led to two more books creating the Griffin and Sabine trilogy.  The tenacity of the characters' draw on their fans was such that Bantock created a sequel trilogy a decade later where two other characters are introduced, Matthew and Isabelle.  The content and the artwork in both trilogies is superb and lives up to the high expectations set by the first book.

Griffin and Sabine is one of the reasons why one would keep and hang on to a book.  While there are many merits to the digital medium in literature, there is simply no translation for the experience offered by a work like this.  Yes, the paper will age and portions will fade over time.  Perhaps the pages will start coming apart at the seams. But that will only add to the charm of this work, unlike the sterility of a digital reproduction.  This is a prime example of why paper books will never go away.

If you know someone who loves books or someone you want to fall in love with books (or just someone you love, period) then you have a perfect gift at hand.  You can thank me later.

Note: The postcards in the books are also available as a boxed set and are worth getting.

LEKH ELIOT PARMAR

[Click on picture for photo album]

Late... but so worth the wait.

July 6th, 2012 was a highly anticipated date in the Parmar household.  That was the due date given by the doctors for our second child.  Since we had decided not to find out the gender of the baby, the anticipation and eagerness grew with each day approaching the due date.  More than anyone, our firstborn, Meru, could not wait for a promotion to the coveted "Big Brother" position.  They say good things come to those who wait.  And wait we did.  

We were told by most people that the second one arrives sooner so we should be prepared to welcome the baby as much as two weeks earlier than the due date.  We got ready.  We would have gotten Meru more excited, if that were possible.  The last week of June came and went.  We watched the fireworks on the 4th of July with the car ready to rush off to the hospital.  Finally July 6th came... and it went.  This baby was not quite ready to leave Mummy yet.  But the baby was healthy (kicking all day long to prove it) and we were assured by the doctors to wait till the 11th when they had scheduled the c-section.  

Well, we welcomed another baby boy on 11th July, 2012 around noon.  He's a big baby and more than makes up for the wait.  Fortunately, the biggest challenge we had that day was to convince Meru that his brother won't quite be ready to play with him in the evening.

Catherine and I would like to introduce our newborn son, Lekh Eliot Parmar.

Date: 11th July, 2012
Time: 12:24 PM
8 pounds, 13 ounces, 21 inches
Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia

It took us a few days to finalize his name as we followed the family tradition of naming the child based on his/her moon sign, Aries in this case. 

Lekh: (lā-kh, lei-kh) A sanskrit word for text, writing or script.   

Eliot: (ĕl-ee-ut) One of Catherine's favorite names (named after the poet)

Since we didn't know the gender of the baby, over the last 6 months we have been referring to him as Biju-baby ("Biju" means second in Gujarati).  The nickname appears to have stuck, especially since Meru doesn't see any reason to give him another name.

Four years ago when Meru was born, we told friends that life, as we knew it, had changed (to put it mildly).  Well, life just got a little more interesting.  It is hard to articulate how much joy this little one has brought to our lives.

Welcome home, Biju!  

आयुष्यमान भव, यशस्वी भव।

SHAME

 

Director: STEVE McQUEEN

Cast: MICHAEL FASSBENDER, CAREY MULLIGAN

Screenplay: ABI MORGAN & STEVE McQUEEN

Music: HARRY ESCOTT

Run Time: 101 min.

(2011)

Mesmerizing but disturbing.

[Disclosure: This is rated NC-17 and rightfully so.  While there is graphic nudity and sex depicted, the subject matter itself is certainly not appropriate for minors.  This is one NC-17 film with sex scenes that are anything but sexy or gratuitous.]

Brandon Sullivan is a handsome, well-coiffed, immaculately dressed thirty-something who is apparently very successful at work.  He lives in a modern but somewhat sterile apartment in New York City.  He is confident, well-spoken and can be quite charming.  However there is another side to his persona that is concealed from all that know him.  He has an addiction that leads to constant urges and impulses focused on sex.  He spends every living moment he can engaged in some form of sexual activity: porn, escorts, masturbation, group sex, bar pickups and more.  British artist Steve McQueen portrays a fascinating character study of a sex addict whose obsession can only lead to self destruction.  

Brandon's aimless but organized lifestyle is disrupted by the sudden presence of his sibling, Sissy, another damaged soul who shares a painful past with Brandon.  There is a hint of something that happened to the two siblings a long time ago and each has chosen a different way of coping with this.  This history that the two have is left to the viewer's imagination based on what one chooses to read in their interactions.  Brandon has chosen to be reserved and insular divulging no emotion to the outside world.  Sissy, on the other hand, throws herself to every man she encounters with an unrestrained hunger.  She wears her emotions on her sleeve and her scars underneath.  They are like oil and water.

The film focuses solely on Brandon and we view Sissy and a few other characters from his point of view.  While he shuts himself to the rest of the world, he cannot prevent Sissy from encroaching his space.  McQueen subtly illustrates how no one can illicit any emotion out of Brandon.  In fact, Sissy is the only one who can provoke any emotion out of him and that is only anger.  She constantly angers him because she represents a past and a reality that he is trying to ignore.  We meet Brandon as he goes through his routine and then see the complications brought by Sissy's appearance.  We accompany him with his boss to a bar as a wing-man and see his boss flop shamelessly.  Brandon, as we see later, cannot afford to fall flat.  His need to hook up is far beyond a hobby or a conquest, it is a true need.

The film succeeds primarily because of three major contributors.  Michael Fassbender is simply brilliant as Brandon and does a remarkable job of expressing volumes with hardly any dialog.  He portrays the different aspects of Brandon's persona with amazing clarity: the confidence, the pain and the guilt.  Carey Mulligan, as Sissy, is compelling, building on her earlier roles, especially An Education.  She is successful in revealing the insecurity and lack of self-esteem that Sissy is burdened with.  There is one scene in particular where she shines but I will get to that in a minute.  The third contribution, as significant as it is subtle, is New York City the way it is captured by Steve McQueen.  As a visual artist of critical acclaim, he has put a stamp on his creation by making New York a key player in the context of his narrative.  A vibrant, bustling metropolis can serve equally well in depicting the loneliness of its inhabitants.  He directs his camera to capture the city in an engaging yet distant manner.  The background score by Harry Escott complements the camerawork beautifully.

A good film usually separates itself from the rest with one or two memorable scenes.  Shame has at least three scenes that elevate it from a good film to a masterful one.  The first is an early scene on the subway train as Brandon commutes to work and notices a beautiful passenger sitting across.  There is no dialog but so much is spoken and exchanged simply through the eyes of the two strangers.  It is a scene that is powerful and flirtatious all at once.  The second scene is one of the many sex scenes and it focuses on Brandon's face as he has an orgasm.  It is a face contorted with pain, anger and sadness; a complete contradiction to the popular perception of climactic pleasure.  It is as if he is enduring this congress to seek the release that he craves.  McQueen avoids lengthy discourses in favor of a scene like this to make his point that this addiction is ultimately nothing other than self-abuse.  The third scene is one where Brandon finally caves in and goes with his boss to see Sissy at work as she sings at a lounge bar.  Sissy's rendition of "New York, New York" is lovely but more powerful is her emotion in the context of the narrative as she tries to connect with Brandon.  The camera focuses on her face for most of the song. (It took about 15 takes as McQueen wanted a complete unbroken shot with the entire song.)  This scene is easily worth the price of admission.

McQueen has done a terrific job of giving credence and authenticity to an addiction/disorder that has for the large part been the butt of jokes for late night television.  Brandon is cold, insular and completely possessed by his compulsions.  He is either incapable of making social contact or avoids it a as result of his past.  At one point, he admits that his longest relationship lasted four months.  The moment he feels any intimacy with a partner, his defenses seem to kick in and he runs away from it.  It is a sad painful existence badly in need of a cathartic release.  This is a terrific and fascinating film to watch, just not an easy one.

Trivia: Though the entire movie is set and filmed in New York, both the leads, the writer and the director are London-based Europeans.  Both the leads play American characters quite convincingly.

HERB & DOROTHY

Director & Producer: MEGUMI SASAKI

Cast: HERBERT VOGEL (Self), DOROTHY VOGEL (Self)

Run Time: 84 min.

(2008)

 "That's why the Vogels are very special. Why should you explain art? What's the need to verbalize art? Herb and Dorothy only look, look and look. That's their way of communicating with art and artists."
 – Lucio Pozzi (first artist interviewed by filmmaker Megumi Sasaki)

He was a postal clerk.  She was a librarian.  They live (to date) in a rent-controlled apartment in New York.  They are, very likely, the greatest art patrons of the 20th century.  In 1992, Herb and Dorothy Vogel donated over 2,000 works of Minimalist and Conceptual Art to the National Gallery of Art in Washington.  True to their belief that art belongs to everyone, they chose the Gallery primarily because it would ensure free access to anyone interested in viewing their collections. (The Gallery does not charge entrance fees and cannot sell any of its donations.)

At first glance, you would mistake Herb and Dorothy to be just another Jewish couple in New York living in a modest apartment with their cat, turtles and lots of fish.  But you would be wrong because this diminutive couple is anything but ordinary.  One would never even dream that this "ordinary" couple had amassed an invaluable collection of modern art worth millions and millions tucked away in every nook and cranny (and ceiling) of their humble abode. But that is precisely what they had done.

Herb and Dorothy got married in 1962 and worked out a plan to pursue their common interest in contemporary art.  They agreed to live frugally on Dorothy's salary from the New York Library while using his salary from the post office to buy art.  The criteria for acquiring a work was very simple: they had to like it, afford it and be able to transport it back on the subway or taxi.  They were in the right place and time to follow their heart.  Over the next few decades, they discovered and met several to-be prominent artists and acquired significant artworks.  While their apartment became overcrowded with works of significant value, they have yet to sell a single piece from their collection.

The documentary by Megumi Sasaki provides an intimate portrait of a couple that is very much in love with each other and art.  Herb had completed a couple of years of high school but, being a voracious reader, taught himself all about art.  Dorothy has a graduate degree and a keen interest in art.  The kind of art that they are interested in is somewhat difficult for most people to grasp.  Most of us are drawn to representational art such as depictions of landscapes, people, etc.  Their focus and interest lies in conceptual art where they seem to be drawn to shapes, color, texture or concepts.

By attending almost every gallery showing, opening and open house during the 60s, 70s and 80s, they not only collected a laudable collection of over 4000 pieces but also built a reputation and following amongst up and coming artists.  In a sense, if Herb and Dorothy picked up a piece from an artist, it was a validation of their creative abilities.  A key aspect of their collecting habit was that if an artist was out of their spending capacity, they simply admitted that and moved on to other emerging artists.  They even acquired some artwork by simply looking after an artist's cat while they were away! 

Over the years, it seems that they knew everyone in New York's art circle and everyone knew them.  The documentary features a veritable Who's Who of artists commending the passion and eye of the Vogels.  Among others, this includes Christo and Jeanne-Claude, Chuck Close, Lynda Benglis, Pat Steir, Robert Barry, Lucio Pozzi and Lawrence Weiner.  Herb & Dorothy's loyalty to their passion is unwavering.  While many of the works they collected went on to being worth hundreds and millions of dollars, they never considered selling anything.  They love all the works (and artists) that they have collected and it brings them joy.  I suppose money could serve as a means to happiness but if you are already happy, it can only add complications.

The most important message from the remarkable life of the Vogels is accepting art for what it is.  It is not a commodity or an investment.  There is beauty expressed in several forms and the artistic value lies in its appreciation.  Art is not, and cannot be, limited to a select few.  One needs neither wealth or degrees to enjoy art.  Simply take the time to look... and look and look.  Follow your instinct and enjoy what appeals to you.  If you really enjoy the artwork, it will not matter whether the "value" of that piece appreciates or not.  Personally, I cannot claim to appreciate (or enjoy) all the works that the Vogels have collected.  But I also cannot explain why I enjoy everything by Bo Bartlett or Adam Vinson.

The Vogels were approached by several museums seeking their collection but they always declined.  They finally selected the National Gallery to donate their entire collection in 1992.  The museum pays them an annuity which the Vogels used to acquire more art rather than buy some furniture.  Since then, the collection has grown to over 4,000 pieces and the Gallery has acknowledged that the abundance of work is more than they can handle.  This has led to a national 50x50 gift project under which 50 works will be distributed to each of the 50 states.  One institute per state will carry the 50 works and will make it a part of their permanent collection.  More info is available at Vogel5050.org.  The project will most likely be completed in 2012 (along with another documentary by Sasaki), the year in which the Vogels celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary.  Quite fitting.

US ECONOMY 102: DIGGING DEEPER

After I posted US Economy 101, there was an interesting question raised which had me digging for some more information; and what I found is not only interesting but also somewhat contrary to public opinion/perception. After reviewing the deficit that the nation is burdened with, one question that cropped up several times was: how much of this is related to the tax-cuts implemented by President Bush and how much of this is related to the cost of wars waged in Afghanistan and Iraq?

This is a very valid question and one that has probably been raised a few times before in the past decade.  I was surprised, if not shocked, to find that while the question is fairly obvious, the data related to the answer was not readily available.  One note of particular interest was that the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) - a congressional non-partisan body who scored the original tax-cut proposal under certain assumptions about future tax laws - has not taken a hindsight look on what the tax-cuts have cost so far.  This would lead me to believe that Congress is not willing to take an impartial look at the decisions it took a decade ago.  This reeks of complicity more than anything else.

After digging around a little bit, I was able to find some data regarding the annual costs of the tax-cuts published by CTJ.org from a research organization called Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (www.itepnet.org).  Here is what I found:  (click to enlarge)

Looking at the last decade, there is a clear correlation between the annual deficit and the impact of the tax-cuts as well as the cost of the wars.  For clarity, the cost of wars shown above represents the appropriations (government spending) requested by the Department of Defense from the Congress each year.  Over the 10-year period, the Bush tax-cuts have cost about $2.1 trillion in lost receipts.  The wars have cost about another $1 trillion.  But the key spike in the deficit came in 2008, as a result of the economic crisis caused by the housing market meltdown.  So while the Bush tax-cuts did not deliver the economic stimulus they were intended to, we would still have found ourselves in a serious problem on account of the economic crisis.

The economic crisis is a whole other issue but if you can spare a couple of hours, Inside Job does a fine job of explaining the origins, cause and culprits of the financial meltdown.  (Spoiler alert: there's nobody innocent here.)  For the time being, let's just focus on the tax-cuts alone and see how they break down between the different groups of tax payers. (click to enlarge)

 

The chart above shows the estimated taxes that would have been paid by the different tax payer groups.  On average, the government would have collected over $200 billion in additional taxes if the Bush tax-cuts would not have been implemented.  About half of that comes from the top 5% of tax payers.  This is not really a surprise.  Those who pay higher taxes benefit the most under the Bush tax-cuts.  Keep in mind that these numbers are estimates and one cannot predict the changes in earning and spending patterns over the years.  Also, the spike in the early years indicates that income tax collections went up.  This, in turn, means that income went up.  One may attribute that to the tax cuts which may have led to increased spending and hence increased earnings by small business owners and perhaps even salary increases. 

The distribution is not at all unexpected.  This is completely in line with share of total income tax paid. The chart below shows the share of income tax paid by top tax payers in the US: (click to enlarge)

You will note that prior to this century, the top tax group was limited to the top 1%.  Since 2001, the tax collection was broken out by the top 0.1% and the rest of the top 1%.   About 10% of the total tax collected comes from the top 0.1% of the tax payers.  The top 10% of the tax payers provide the government with over half of the total tax collected.  (This data refers to the tax payers, not the entire population which includes non-payers.)  After all, this is the mark of a true capitalist society.  A small select segment of the society will earn most of the rewards and therefore will pay most of the taxes.  This is what drives the American dream chaser: one keeps striving to get into that small top bracket, either by labor, luck or lawlessness.

So the bottom line is that yes, the top earners or ultra-rich certainly got a huge benefit out of the tax cuts.  But that is mainly because they are the ones who pay most of the taxes anyway.  Like it or not, that is the American way.  The biggest culprit for the current predicament is the one that nobody is mentioning: the 2008 financial crisis.  The global impact of this crisis was around $20 trillion and to this date, there has been nobody held accountable for this.  The catastrophic crisis was undoubtedly a result of neglect and irresponsibility by several governments and other government and non-government bodies.  But I don't think I can do a better job of explaining this than Inside Job.

US ECONOMY 101: DEFICIT, DEBT & DOUBT

As we approach the 2012 election season, all voices will converge on a single issue and this time that issue will undoubtedly be the economy.  All candidates (regardless of party affiliation) will tout their ability/plan to fix what is broken and make it stronger than ever before.   But what are we really talking about here?  It might be a good time to understand (albeit at an elementary level) the magnitude of numbers and the implication they may have.

Let’s start off with some basic definitions:

Receipts: Our government earns its revenue by collecting various taxes.  These include individual taxes that you and I file, corporate taxes from companies, payroll taxes from employers, excise taxes which are paid on goods sold or made for sale and other miscellaneous taxes.  Collectively, this income for the government is referred to as Receipts.

Outlays: Once they collect the receipts, the government is obliged to put it to good use on behalf of its people, in other words, spend the money.  In our case, this is spent in four large categories: Mandatory Spending viz. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Federal disability programs, etc.; Defense Expenditures; Non-Defense Spending which is discretionary; and Interest Payments on borrowings.  This spending is referred to as Outlays.  (Discretionary spending is expenses that are determined by Congress each year.  Mandatory spending is authorized by permanent laws and the amount depends on participation rather than Congress.)

National Debt: In case you were wondering how our government would spend more than it earns, the answer is quite simple.  Like the rest of us, our government goes to a bank of sorts and borrows money with a promise to pay interest annually and the principal back at some point of time.  This loan or borrowing is our national debt.

It is important to note the link between deficits and debt.  Not unlike any average household, when you have a deficit you are forced to borrow and create a debt.  Now, as each year goes by, any further deficit you might have will lead to a further borrowing or, in other words, will increase the debt.  In our case, this has been a cycle of enormous proportions and the current debt is about $15 trillion ($15,000,000,000,000).  How much is this really?  Look at it this way.  Every single person in the US owes about $5 million each!!

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the White House maintains historical records of a lot of statistics.  I have used some of their data to create some historical charts which help us understand the changes that have taken place over the past few decades.  The data is from the 2012 proposed budget and provides the current government's estimates for the next 5 years.

Looking at Receipts over the last 50-plus years, the following picture emerges: (click to enlarge)

There was a time when the bulk of the government's income came from corporation and excise taxes. This means that during that period, American companies were doing quite well and paid taxes on their earnings.  Also, the excise tax indicates that a lot of the production was domestic.  As we look down the time-line, production gets outsourced and excise taxes shrink as a percentage of total.  As companies set up off-shore tax shelters, the corporate income taxes shrink as well.  Currently, the largest portion of the government's income is from the taxes that you and I file, along with the payroll taxes our employers file on our behalf.  It is interesting to note the dramatic decrease in corporate taxes.  Over the years, corporations have lobbied with politicians to claim and retain tax breaks and the impact is evident in the chart above.

A similar snapshot of outlays shows the following: (click to enlarge)

So, where does this money that is collected go?  The general impression that an average layperson carries is that the government spends most of the money collected on defense to protect our interests.  This was true about 50 years ago when most of the spending was indeed on defense.  However, in the recent past, this spending pattern has shifted.  The largest draw on the receipts is no longer defense but mandatory spending such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid.  As the economy sputters, this spending increases further as more and more people seek government aid.  The other portion that is projected to increase in the coming years is Net interest.  Remember the Debt that we talked about?  Well, we have to pay it back, at least the interest on it.  As the deficit grows, we borrow more.  As we borrow more, we have to pay more in annual interest payments.

Speaking of deficits, let's look at the annual deficit over the past couple decades.  The bars show the annual change in deficit i.e. the year-on-year change in deficit. (A positive change means the deficit was less than the previous year, not necessarily a surplus.) (click to enlarge)

The US has always operated with a deficit, as it is seen in the chart.  However this deficit, or shortfall between receipts and outlays, has been relatively small.  In fact, during the late 90s, US enjoyed a surplus for a few years.  But in the recent past, the spending has increased drastically in relation to the receipts.  In the last 5 years, the deficit has more than doubled.  To put it in perspective, the "war on terror" had a smaller impact on the deficit compared to the housing crisis of 2008.  As of today, the deficit is around $15 trillion.  I remain doubtful about the current government's projection of the deficit being reduced to half in the next 3 years.  I am sure it is a noble intention but unfortunately not very realistic.

In a very basic sense, what you spend in excess of your income will be your debt. The chart below shows the growth of our national debt over the years. (click to enlarge)

Originally, I had tried to look at the debt over a longer period but in that chart, the debt line looked like a hockey stick!  I have added the annual income (or receipts) to put the debt in perspective.  Currently our debt is running about 7 times our annual income.  While this sounds bad enough, let's try to put this in perspective.  If this were a housing loan (mortgage) at 5%, then the $15 trillion house would need an annual payment of $1B.  Or in other words, 45% of your annual income would need to go towards your house payment.  And if you were committed and able to do so then in 30 years, you would own your house.  Unfortunately, this house seems out of reach right now.

Well, what can be done about this now?  Obviously, the two fundamental courses of action are reducing outlays or spending and increasing receipts.  Both are easier said than done given that this lifestyle has become a habit.  Reducing expenses would mean some sort of austerity measure on mandatory programs such as Social Security and Medicare.  Increasing receipts would mean an increase in taxes in some form: individual, corporate or both.  None of these choices is easy to swallow but this ailment will not be cured without strong medicine.

So, as we prepare for the onslaught of perfect solutions from candidates (incumbent and aspiring alike), it might be worth our while to keep in mind the severity of the problem and how important it is for our future to solve this issue.  After all, if the deficit is not curbed then we need to keep borrowing more and increase the debt.  At some point of time, the debt grows so large that you cannot afford to pay back the debt.  There is a term for this situation: bankruptcy.