First Principles

This whole debate over the debt ceiling debate is very welcome, even if the substance has been nothing short of silly.  Really, it’s like arguing over whether or not we should use scotch tape or masking tape to cover up the hole in the Titanic, and whether to use a thimble or a teaspoon to bail her out.  But at least we’re doing it, and the debate is here to stay, at least for awhile.  But does it really matter at the end of the day?

The premise of the argument so far, at least as it’s been posited in the media and punditocracy in most places, is really wrong. In fact, I can’t say that I’ve heard anyone really get down to the brass tacks of it.

The question is not whether we make government smaller – that’s inevitable.  The question is whether we take it down in a steep but controlled descent, or whether we just let it collapse around our heads.  I would certainly hope for the former, but it seems that everyone in Washington is willing to do it the hard way.

~~~

I think that Congressional Republicans, tea party movement types and otherwise, should have voted solidly for John Boehner’s last two plans.  I still think it’s better to extend the debt ceiling for a little longer right now than go into default, and as a political matter, it made no sense to kneecap the Majority Leader politically.

But I understand those who voted against it, because THEY understand what most of them don’t want to say out loud – we’re doomed without MAJOR cuts in spending.  And no, that doesn’t mean reductions in increases, which is all we’re getting now.  They understand that the question isn’t to default or not, but WHEN we will default without major austerity measures, including major changes (reductions in benefits) to Social Security and other entitlement programs.  They understand that really and truly, we’re much closer than anyone wants to admit to being out of other people’s money, and that applying for another credit card will only make things worse in the end.  And frankly, default later won’t be any better than default now, and will likley be a great deal worse.  SO there was a little part of me that kind of hoped they wouldn’t make a deal at all.

Freedom, as the song goes, is just another word for nuthun’ left to lose.  So if the economic collapse is inevitable with the current Boehner plan or without it, what’s the point of voting for it, or any other compromise that doesn’t solve the problem?  And let’s be clear – any plan that thinks borrowing ten years worth of spending in just two years is part of the problem, not the solution.

The only reason I’m glad it passed is because otherwise Republicans will be blamed, rightly or wrongly, for any consequences that come from the default.  And the argument that the pain of ripping off the band-aid now is better than slowly peeling it off later is tough love at its hardest to sell.  Keep the full faith and credit of the country in tact long enough to act real spending problems after successful 2012 elections.  Think of it as the careful wiring and even added supports building demolishers use to make sure their dynamited buildings come down safely, as opposed to just tossing in a bunch of explosives right away.  It’s like using methadone as a stepping stone to get off heroin.  It really is important that we make a controlled descent, rather than simply hastening collapse.

~~~

But at the end of the day, all these “unreasonable” and “terroristic” Republicans are right.  We spend far more than we take in.  That can’t last forever.  And things that can’t last forever, don’t.

That includes the Social Security.  And Medicare.  And the US Economy.  It even includes the US.  You can’t keep adding over a Trillion dollars to the debt every single year and expect everything to go along swmingly. Eventually, someone calls the debt in, or you run out of lenders.  Either way, there is a hard, hard ceiling on the status quo.  Democrats who crow about “saving” Social Security and Medicare because they didn’t allow an unsustainable program to be reformed are simply deluding themselves (not to mention the public) and guaranteeing the total collapse of necessary safety net.

Seriously – if you were bent on destroying Social Security and Medicare and Pell Grants and every other thing so many people want the government to be in the business of, could you do better than our current political class is doing now?

I’ve read a lot of Democrats complain that comparing it to “how families have to do it” is unfair, and besides – don’t we go into debt all the time for our families’ benefit with mortgages and car loans?  Anyone who proffers this argument should immediately be blacklisted by every bank in the country from ever qualifying for a home or auto loan.  The obvious answer is, of course, that unlike the Federal Government, my debts get smaller over time as I pay them off.  And if they didn’t, I’d lose my house and my car and probably everything else I own to pay off the debts.  In other words, my personal economy would collapse, just like the national economy (and all those beloved entitlement programs) will.

~~~

I’ve also read a lot of Democrats (and others) giving the tired, “Yeah, well, Republicans are just as guilty!”

OK.  Let’s just ignore that who controlled Congress in those years matters at least as much as who was in the White House, and ignore that President Obama is responsible for about as much debt in 2.5 years as President Bush was in all 8 of his years.

Fine.  You’re right.  Democrats and Republicans alike kept issuing themselves new credit cards when they maxed out all the old ones.  Bad Republicans!  Naughty!  Shame!

So what?

Since when does getting better about adhering to one’s stated principles considered a bad thing?  If a sinner stops sinning, is he now a hypocrite?  So now prior bad acts must be forever adhered to?  Should former drug addicts NOT urge other people to stay off the smack?  What possible sense does THAT make?

And really, if Democrats are going to run around criticizing Republicans for being profligate spenders, shouldn’t they, ya know, not be four times as profligate?  Are these people really this dense?  Or do they think we are?  Either way…

~~~

Ultimately, this debt compromise plan is only a stopgap.  I am curious that no one has pressed senior Democrats on what they think the endgame is.  How high should taxes be?  What’s the upper limit?  When should the borrowing stop?

What’s your plan, Mr. President?  Details, please.

Of course, there will be no such plan, because no such plan is possible.  You cannot borrow your way out of debt.  The President could tax every last red cent of the entire nation’s Gross Domestic Product, and at current spending and borrowing rates, we’d be right back at the same debt level in about ten years!

And even if we balanced the budget tomorrow, we’d still be adding almost half a trillion a year to the debt just on interest alone.  And then there’s the $100 Trillion (can that number even be comprehended?) in unfunded future liabilities…

Maybe we are doomed.

~~~

I don’t think anyone at this point really understands – or wants to – just how bad things are, and will continue to get.  A “Trillion” is really, really hard for those of us without astrophysics degrees (and even then!) to really fathom.  And there’s no free ride on the way out – we’re going to pay for the past couple of generations’ recklessness, led by Democrats and Republicans alike.

But the alternative of ignoring the problem until it literally destroys the country is no alternative at all.  Let’s hope for all our sakes that those totally unreasonable hostage taking terrorist tea party Republicans keep up the good work.

It’s not like they – or the rest of the world – have anything to lose.