A lot to comment on here- I will take a shot, but if I miss something or am not clear, feel free to point out what I miss/omit.
@jadmperry - do you think our current level of public debt and spending is sustainable (the country as a whole, including the states and local entities)?
Well, this is a really hard question in some respects. That is because it mixes "current" spending (meaning now, of course), with sustainable (which, necessarily is future looking). So, if you mean can current spending be sustained, it probably, at least at the Federal, can be sustained. Whether this level of debt is ideal or not, is a separate question. I just think it is technically feasible, if not ideal. (State and local issues are too broad to probably make generalizations about, but, I will try to offer some thoughts, below). But, I sense you are really talking about the future and sustainability in that context.
So, I will answer that easier question. Barring some great leaps in productivity and national wealth (which, I suppose could happen, but would not count on it in the near term), no, I don't think our present spending level, given projected increases in so called non-discretionary spending, is sustainable.
If not, what do you see the consequences ultimately being?
Well, if it is not sustainable, then the only choice seems to be a decrease in spending.
Do you think there is a lack of reality on the part of politicians in dealing with these issues in this country?
Clearly, at least as to the part of "politicians" as a whole coming up with a solution that has enough support to translate into legislation and the budgetary process. Now, I think that there are some workable solutions out there, but so far, none has enough support to pass into law. While maybe not ideal (people will certainly disagree on this), the Bowles-Simpson financial responsibility commission came up with a proposal to get spending under control. So, there are some politicians who have made some efforts (that are based in reality). But as a group, the politicians appear to be unable to deal with these issues directly.
Let's not forget, the super committee's failure to come to a consensus means that under current law, we will see an automatic $1.2 trillion cut in spending, including defense and Medicare over a ten year period. Though it is considered highly doubtful that Congress won't step in and change the current legislation, the current legislation seems to be a consequence of the inability of politicians to directly deal with spending and debt.
Or better yet, do you think politicians/bureaucrats are the ones who should be?
Well, I don't know who else would be dealing directly with spending, as our process requires Congress to pass the budget. Maybe I am missing the question or your point?
(these are all serious questions not meant to bait, I'm genuinely interested in your viewpoint
)
Hope I responded well enough. Reasonable people can disagree on the subject. But, discussion is a way to try to come to consensus.