Can we ever pay down our credit card?

The angst over the national debt didn't pop up with the spending binges of Barack Obama and George W. Bush. It has been a wasp's nest on the front porch of the White House since the founding of the country.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued about whether to incur debt at all. Eventually, Hamilton won and President George Washington signed a bill to allow the federal government to do so.

Hamilton maintained debt served a purpose in building the country. He wanted debt "incorporated, as a fundamental maxim in the system of public credit of the United States, that the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment."

Jefferson and Madison feared debt would become the fulcrum by which the federal government would rise too powerfully in the union of states.

"I, however, place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared," Thomas Jefferson wrote later in 1816.

The history of national debt is one of the important takeaways in the new book "White House Burning: The Founding Fathers, Our National Debt, And Why It Matters To You" by Simon Johnson and James Kwak.

As the subtitle implies, the authors don't leave us hanging in the 1790s. The book brings the debate right up to today and will leave you with an abiding sense that we 21st century folk didn't invent the argument, nor did we refine it, but we may be called to find a way to resolve it. And it won't be easy, as a large chunk of the national debt now goes to fund popular entitlements Social Security and Medicare.

Here's the conundrum: The central government spends more than it takes in. To make up the deficit it incurs debt, just as Hamilton envisioned. A certain amount of debt is safe, and the ability to incur more debt if needed is important. As an example of the practicality of Jefferson, even though he opposed debt, he used it as president to make the Louisiana Purchase. He didn't second-guess himself. He borrowed the money and doubled the size of the United States.

But incurring debt is easier than reducing the debt. And here, authors Johnson and Kwak nail the big issue of the day.

"Ultimately," they write, "any major deficit reduction strategy implies a vision of society. This is all the more reason why any discussion of the national debt must begin with basic principles, not just a list of numbers."

The authors conclude the prescription for meaningful debt reduction and a healthy economic and social America require a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts.

That's not my default position. However, Social Security is in trouble.

When baby boomers were at their peak earning age, Social Security looked solvent because the many supported the few. Now that boomers are retiring, the surplus they built up and shipped to Washington has disappeared in the congressional spending machine.

If we want Social Security and other social safety nets to continue in any manner for which we've become accustomed, we must get a handle on that.

If the plan were to cut the deficit by raising taxes and cutting spending on, say, a 1-to-1 basis - or even a 10-to-1 basis - how can the people trust Washington to use the new cash to reduce debt as planned and preserve the social programs we want?

Congress has a million budgetary tricks it can conjure up to pass off radishes as carrots. And its track record on spending restraint is, to put it mildly, not good.

But, in the spirit of national dialogue, let's start with the background provided by Johnson and Kwak. Then, I would ask on behalf of those who no longer trust Washington with one penny more in new revenue: Shouldn't we start with spending cuts first?

Isn't that the more practical approach?

Sherman Frederick, former publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal and member of the Nevada Newspaper Hall of Fame, writes a column for Stephens Media. Read his blog at www.lvrj.com/blogs/sherm.