It’s hard to believe that Ross Perot’s heyday was 18 years ago. For those younger folks, Perot was the independent presidential candidate who used infomercials and charts to effectively communicate that the federal government was spending too much money.

Getting people to understand budget deficits, however, is usually quite a bit trickier. The Tax Foundation may have found a way with its new analysis. Some details below and a full link here, but the bottom line on erasing the current deficit: Instead of couples paying income tax rates that range from 10% to 35%, try these on for size — 24.3% to 84.9%. Translation: future generations are going to be paying the price for years and years to come.

At no point in the next ten years, according to the Obama Budget, will the deficit ever shrink to as little as 3 percent of GDP. According to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), it will never even get as low as 4 percent. And the dire deficit predictions of reliable nonprofit groups like the Pew Trust and Peterson Foundation are even more alarming: the deficit won’t even shrink to 5.5 percent of GDP in their analysis.

‘Mind boggling’ is the term Martin Sullivan of Tax Analysts uses to describe the tax and spending changes that would have to occur just to get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP.

"Our gridlocked, dysfunctional Congress simply cannot bring itself to absorb these types of painful shocks," says Sullivan. "Given these unprecedented pressures I believe that within the next decade there is more than a 50-50 chance there will be an upheaval either of the political system or the economy."

The trouble with political discourse about the deficit is that voters are often numb to the subject, and as a result, politicians are able to avoid the unpopular votes for cutting spending or raising taxes. Whether deficits are expressed in hundreds of billions of dollars or percentages of GDP, their importance is hard for leaders to convey or for the public to grasp.

But as big as deficits were back then (the early 1990s), they were never so huge that they couldn’t be remedied by holding down the rate of spending growth and adding a couple points to an income tax rate. Now, as the table below shows, that is out of the question. Even in 2012 or 2015 when the effects of the housing bubble and the fiscal stimulus have dissipated, the rate hikes required to balance the budget are unthinkable. 

It sounds good on paper, but personally I’m not buying it. In this case, "it" is a New Jersey proposal that says if the state is going to give you your paycheck, you have to live within its borders.

With our capital’s geographic presence in the middle of the state, I can’t imagine too many are commuting from Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky or Michigan to Indy. But state workers are not confined to the big city. The New Jersey bill would impact teachers, police officers and firefighters as well as all city and county government employees.

There are strong Indiana connections to Cincinnati, Chicago and Louisville in addition to numerous other areas in the four neighboring locales. I grew up in Dearborn County, a lot closer to Cincy than Indy, and a tri-state ingredient seems to be active in all four corners of the state.

The full New Jersey article is here. Below is a quick summary:

State Sen. Donald Norcross (D., Camden), the sponsor of the bill, said, "It is very simple. If you want a paycheck from New Jersey taxpayers, you should have to live here, pay your taxes here and be part of your community."

Norcross, who also leads the 85,000-member South Jersey AFL-CIO Central Labor Council, said an estimated 10,000 public employees live out of state, costing the state about $22 million in income taxes.

"What really gets me is when I look at the mass exodus every night out of Trenton to Pennsylvania," Senate President Stephen Sweeney said. "If it’s good enough to work for the state, it should be good enough to live in the state of New Jersey," he added.

Public employee unions said that while relatively few of their members work out of state, they strongly oppose the measure for those who do.

"I think it’s a ridiculous proposal," said Bob Master, regional political director for the Communication Workers of America. "It will have no meaningful impact in the long run on the state’s budget problems and it will cause completely unnecessary hardship for our members."

Master said that if New Jersey’s neighboring states were to adopt similar tactics, the results would not be pretty.

Debates over funding for public broadcasting are nothing new. The level of deliberations - and funding cuts - has increased dramatically in recent years, threatening the future existence of public television and radio outlets. Some states are currently being hit harder than others with many (including Indiana) suffering. Stateline writes:

Idaho Public Television already has seen its state funding cut by 61 percent since July 2008, necessitating layoffs, furloughs and the frequent airing of re-runs. The governor’s proposal, according to the agency, would force it to reduce or eliminate most of its local programming—and cease serving many rural parts of the state altogether.

"We’ve had to take a look at everything we’re doing in state government and asking the question, why?” Jon Hanian, a spokesman for (Gov. Butch) Otter, says of the proposal. “We’re looking at everything and asking, ‘Is this or is this not a proper role of government?’ We’re also differentiating between things that we’ve started doing because it’s nice and things that we must do because it’s necessary."

The challenges that Idaho Public Television is facing are emblematic of the decisions that public television agencies and stations around the country will have to make if states decide that public television is no longer a business they can afford to be in. According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), state and local funding for public television stations nationwide declined by $36 million between 2008 and 2009. CPB forecasts an additional $45 to $49 million in state and local cuts for the upcoming fiscal year.

States have cut back on funding during previous economic downturns, says Mark Erstling, a senior vice president at CPB, but this downturn poses a new threat. "The revenue sources always made up the difference,” he says. “This time around, everything is basically down."  Total non-federal sources of revenue, including member donations and corporate underwriting, declined by $200 million from 2008 to 2009. CPB is concerned that member donations may begin to decline more sharply, as they tend to be the last source of public broadcasting revenue to drop during economic downturns.

Take a look at the Indiana Chamber’s BizVoice magazine covers (71 of them over the past 12 years) and you won’t see a lot of people. We don’t have anything against people, particularly Hoosier leaders in their field. We interview them, we gather their insights and we focus on telling good stories.

The lack of photographs is due more to the absence of a full-time staff photographer and the presence of a very talented creative director who has been involved in all but the first two issues of those 71. Tony Spataro won’t want me to mention his name (yeah, right), but I digress.

Our March-April issue does feature a photo of someone making a difference in higher education. His name is Nasser Paydar and he is chancellor of the Indiana University East campus in Richmond. His neighbor, literally across the parking lot, is Ivy Tech Community College.

Paydar eliminated associate degrees and remedial classes (why duplicate what Ivy Tech is doing, he says) and turned his focus to partnerships. He’s giving up potential students in the short run but gaining a strong pipeline for his campus’ bachelor and advanced degree programs. And, most important, he’s operating with the top priority on the students. Sounds like a simple concept, but it’s not one that is always followed.

The in-depth story on higher education efficiency and effectiveness is titled Breaking Down Walls: Columbus, Richmond Show the Way. Give it a read and let us know what you think.

Jobs are — or should be — the number one priority as economic recovery (in that sense) remains elusive. For those currently without jobs, however, how much unemployment compensation is too much? It’s a tricky question, but one that is starting to be asked by more than a few people.

The unemployment comp program, created during the Depression as a temporary aid for laid-off workers, is now termed by some as an "expensive entitlement." While those out of work once received six months of payments, that has now surged to as high as 99 weeks in some states. Half of the more than 11 million unemployed have been jobless for longer than six months.

This is a downturn unlike any other since the program was created and many of those jobs will likely not come back. And while the vast majority are very likely doing all they can to find meaningful employment in the effort to return to their previous lifestyle, nearly two years of unemployment benefits has also undoubtedly led some to adopt the option of "let the government pay the tab" for awhile.

Few seemingly agreed with Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning’s recent filibuster that delayed the latest unemployment benefits extension (he wanted Washington to find a way to pay for it), but his logic was accepted in some circles. Colleague Jon Kyle of Arizona commented that the continued benefits are a "disincentive for people to seek new work" and that no one can argue that the current system is a "job enhancer."

Employers pay the bill through taxes in nearly all states (a few require worker contributions). Benefits have been extended before, but rolled back when the unemployment rate declined. That decline is proving difficult to achieve this time around.

A Washington Post article this week included the following:

"It is appropriate and natural for Congress to extend the time limit of unemployment insurance with the job market as bad as it is," said James Sherk, a labor economist at the Heritage Foundation. "But by quadrupling it, it is no longer an unemployment insurance program but a welfare program."

Phillip L. Swagel, a former Treasury Department official who is now a business professor at Georgetown University, said that some people might take longer to find a new job as a result of unemployment insurance extensions, but that right now it’s a needed benefit.

"The reality is that it’s hard to find a job even for people who really want one," he said.

But as the job market improves, Swagel said, unemployment insurance extensions must be pared back quickly, as they have been in previous downturns. "It’s important to let the extensions lapse as the job market recovers — to avoid having disincentives to work once the job market is better," Swagel said.

Part of the question is timing. For a program that is currently costing $10 billion a month, that’s something that needs answered sooner rather than later.

There has been plenty of talk lately about high-speed rail. If that talk eventually turns into action and Indiana ends up in the fast lane, all we can say is it’s about time.

America takes a back seat (way back) to other countries when it comes to moving people on the rails. A few examples from around the world:

• Japan’s Shinkansen bullet train between Tokyo and Osaka, built in 1964 and averaging 150 mph, was the first. Seven more lines have been added and 300 million passengers a year are served
• France’s major cities are connected by the TGV line with additional links to Germany, Belgium and England. Passengers: 100 million a year; miles: currently 1,800 with 1,200 more planned
• In Spain, more people travel between Madrid and Seville by rail than by car and air combined

Some question whether American efforts will add up, with proponents saying true high-speed requires dedicated track, no freight traffic and speeds of at least 150 mph. Midwest plans don’t meet that criteria, but at this point any realistic rail options would be better than what we have now.

We hear the unemployment rate each month, but here are a few other numbers to look at in regard to the economy and jobs:

• Bad news: 8.5 million or so jobs lost in the recession, with more than 40% of those people out of work for more than six months (in 1983 that figure only got as high as 26%)
• Better news: While January of this year saw a decline of 20,000 jobs, that paled to nearly 800,000 jobs lost in the same month a year ago
• Interesting statistic: Many people forget about the job churn that constantly takes place within companies, industries or the economy as a whole. In the second quarter of 2009, 6.4 million people found jobs, but 8 million lost their positions

They’re not all coming back, but bad and better will give way to good and great eventually.