Few rules govern how nations can borrow the money they need for expenses like the military and health care. The market for sovereign debt — the Wall Street term for loans to governments — is as unfettered as it is vast.

“If a government wants to cheat, it can cheat,” said Garry Schinasi, a veteran of theInternational Monetary Fund’s capital markets surveillance unit, which monitors vulnerability in global capital markets.

Make no mistake about it – the Democratic Party is growing. It’s demographics – hispanics, high-educated white voters – are growing and more and more young people are associating themselves as social liberals who care little for fiscal or economic conservatism.

That spells trouble for Republicans and according to Fortier it means:

The GOP needs more Bob McDonnells and Scott Browns, not wide-eyed, good government types or stodgy conservatives, but people with a mix of conservatism and at least a part of the populism that is mainstream in the middle class.

Fortier is addressing an original piece, which might be worthwhile to look at in part. Henry Olsen at National Review addresses what may lead to the downfall of the GOP.

My thoughts on the issue are fairly straightforward. The Republican Party needs to have a positive voice that advocates fiscal discipline, pro-growth economic policies and a strong national defense plan. The approach should be level-headed, involve moderation and seek pragmatic solutions to policy challenges.

We should concentrate first on balancing the federal budget by reforming the tax code and cutting unnecessary spending. Tax reform should create a more capital friendly environment that encourages small-business growth and corporate investment at home, not abroad. Entitlement spending should be near the top of the list when it comes to what needs reform. Our social programs cannot be responsible for bankrupting our nation. Underwriting the world’s security is expensive and unfortunately, we must make a choice between financing a modern welfare state or being the world’s most powerful – and most secure – country.

We should call for the continued reform and strengthening of our armed forces. Unfortunately for Congress, this may mean their districts will lose important government contracts.

Social issues like gay-marriage and abortion should be addressed at the state-level where the people can make their own decisions. We should recognize, however, the inevitable fact that the Court is more than likely to address these issues from an equal rights standpoint.

Our family first approach should advocate an egalitarian system and a business world that accepts women as part of the workforce and as mothers.

Health care and education also need serious reform. There are a number of other issues that deserve attention, but we must develop priorities.

The Congressional Budget Office called the federal budget, in its current form, “unsustainable.” A working paper from the American Enterprise Institute highlights the CBO’s projections, with a concluding analysis.

According to several recent reports issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the U.S. federal budget is on an unsustainable path. In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 44 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 61 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. The current deficit is due in part to the stimulus legislation and efforts to stabilize financial markets. CBO (2009a) projects that spending related to such economic weakness will push primary spending (defined as all spending, except interest payments on federal debt) up to 26 percent of GDP this fiscal year, the highest since World War II.

The long-term budget outlook is equally troubling. The CBO report (2009b) projects that under the Obama Administration proposals, the cumulative deficit for the period 2010-2019 will be approximately $9.1 trillion. In other words, the average deficit per year will approach $1 trillion. After 2019, the situation is expected to worsen with deficits (under certain scenarios) projected at 17 percent of GDP by 2040.

These projections raise serious concerns about the long-term sustainability of U.S. fiscal policy. If spending grows as projected and revenues do not rise at a matching rate, annual deficits will climb and federal debt will grow significantly. As debt increases, a higher and higher share of national output will be devoted to interest payments, and the level of taxation needed to sustain government becomes historically unprecedented. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, lead to more borrowing from abroad and also lower domestic investment. If such a path is to be averted, then changing policy sooner reduces the size of the problem significantly.

Fiscal solvency is the most-pressing long-term issue faced by the Obama Administration and the current Congress. Our fiscal recklessness undermines our economic future, the position of our currency in the world and threatens our position as the world’s pre-eminent economic superpower.

The need to save our economy from the brink of collapse and create jobs is, understandably, a top-priority. Beyond that, and beyond the current economic cycle, however, policymakers need to be committed to not only balancing our yearly budgets, but also lowering our debt load. It could even be said that if the United States had maintained over the past three decades a fiscal policy even somewhat resembling that of a responsible one, short-term deficits would not be a problem. Short-term deficits are acceptable if and only if the United States has a responsible long-term fiscal policy.

As our deficits grow and as we leave them unattended, more and more of the burden for repaying our debt will be passed on to my generation and my children’s generation. It will require more resources and a larger part of their economy to make these payments. That could mean a weaker social safety net and higher taxes. It could mean reduced military spending and the sacrifice of strategic security. It could mean cuts to education, transportation and more. The sacrifices we have to make today in order to put ourselves on a path to solvency will be marginal compared to the choices and challenges of the next thirty years, if we allow our fiscal irresponsibility to continue.

The new number comes from Senator Judd Gregg and includes some funny math. You can read an explanation of that at HotAir.

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager’s amendment to the House health reform bill.

Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.

As a side note, Heritage says $2.6 trillion.

Obviously, the real answer to how much health care reform will cost is: We don’t know. Including cuts to medicare and tax increases, it’s obvious that the plan will be expensive.

This is more than a Republican Party talking point, however. Spending this much money could have serious repercussions on the fiscal solvency of the federal government. Entitlements never get smaller. Social safety net programs, like Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security and now health care, only get bigger.

With that in mind, even if health care does lower the deficit over the next ten years and even if it only costs $1.2 trillion in that decade, what about the next ten years, or twenty?