Originally printed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 15th, 2011

The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction faces a reporting deadline of Nov. 23. However, the United States will reach a dubious financial milestone before the "supercommittee" finishes its work. Within the next few days, our total federal debt will surpass $15 trillion. This amount of debt would not be a problem if our economy were $100 trillion - but it's not; it's about $15 trillion. As a result, our debt to Gross Domestic Product ratio has reached 100%, a very dangerous metric.

To demonstrate why this is a problem for our economy, just think about what happens when a family goes deep into debt. How can that family grow its personal economy? How can family members increase their consumption when any extra money they have is spent servicing their debt?

The answer is they can't. Their consumption is constrained, and their standard of living declines. The same dynamic is at play with our nation's economy - on a far larger scale.

It's helpful to bring some historical perspective to the debt, spending and deficit debate. From 1992 to 2001, the federal government spent $16 trillion. Over the past decade, we spent $28 trillion. The current debate over the next 10-year total is whether to spend $46 trillion (President Barack Obama's budget) or $40 trillion (Republican House budget). Neither of these figures represents a cut.

Let's consider annual spending. In 2001, the federal government spent $1.9 trillion. Last year, we spent $3.6 trillion. We basically doubled spending in the past 10 years. Ten years from now - in 2021 - Obama's budget proposes spending $5.7 trillion, while the House budget proposes spending $4.7 trillion. Neither figure is lower than the $3.6 trillion we spent last year - again, no cut.

In 1987, our total national debt was $2.3 trillion, and our debt-to-GDP ratio was 50%. This was the accumulation of all the debt from our nation's founding until almost the end of the Reagan administration - a period of two centuries. August's budget agreement will result in raising the debt ceiling by about the same amount - $2.4 trillion - but instead of two centuries, this will only last us about two years.

In each of the past five years, our national debt has grown faster than our entire economy. On average, we are spending about $100 billion more per month than we are taking in. And there is literally no end in sight. In fact, current government projections probably understate future deficits and debt by trillions of dollars.

For example, because employers are highly incentivized to drop expensive health coverage in favor of paying Obamacare's $2,000 penalty, their employees will become eligible for generous subsidies that can exceed $10,000 per year. This will likely add trillions to the 10-year deficit projections. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office reports that missing economic growth projections by just 1% would increase the deficit by $3.1 trillion over the next 10 years.

When Obama was elected, our total debt was $10 trillion, our debt-to-GDP ratio was approximately 70% and federal spending was 20.7% of GDP. By the end of his first term, we will have added $6 trillion to our debt, and federal spending will be 24% of GDP. Add in state and local spending, and we have reached 40% of GDP, the lower threshold of European-style socialized government. Is it any wonder we are experiencing European-style structural unemployment of 9% and anemic economic growth?

What I have described above is a problem of spending too much, not taxing too little. So the solution lies in finding ways to limit the growth in government, not figuring out how to take more from hardworking Americans. Recent reports out of the supercommittee are not encouraging. Even though there have been hundreds of suggestions for common-sense ways to restrain spending and limiting the growth of government - including $1.4 trillion in reductions that I have recommended - it appears Democrats are insisting on tax increases as the price for any meaningful spending restraint.

I realize that it might be politically popular to insist on tax increases for the "rich." But I hope Americans - and supercommittee members - ask a simple question regarding any proposed tax increase: How many jobs will that tax increase create and how will it help our economy grow?

When you take a "little bit more" from job-creating businesses, you reduce their ability to invest in new plants and equipment, increase wages and retirement contributions and pay for rising health care benefits. In other words, you harm economic growth, and you make it harder to create jobs. We should reduce spending, not increase taxes.

Mr. Johnson is a Republican senator from Wisconsin.

###