A Conversation about the Debt

My experience with Facebook conversations, at least those started by individuals, is that a length of 64+ comments is unusual. And when it does happen, that is often the end of it. I would like to continue this conversation.

The conversation I am referring to is here. First, I admit that the cartoon that started it was provocative. It was deliberately so, and for that I can hardly apologize, but I also admit that it is an exaggeration. That is what cartoons do. But the conversation that ensued brought up much more substantial issues, which I hope will result in further (and hopefully) deeper discussion.

The issue that started all of this was the need to raise the debt ceiling. I think we all agree that Deficits Do Matter and that reducing rather than raising the debt should be the goal. No one disagrees, right?

Andrew suggested that Congress should just refuse to raise the debt ceiling. "We can't spend more than we bring in," which we just agreed is the goal. "Then it is up to the president to determine where cuts are made. He can choose to 'default' or not."

Not so fast, says Cheryl. "They already drank the beer--it's gone." Yes, we need to figure out how to stop deficit spending, but to simply cut programs and services in a massive way is also irresponsible. Surely some of the programs and services for which our taxes are paying are wasteful and unnecessary, but massive across the board cuts are not the answer. Brett says we can find plenty of places to cut without "having to cut funding for things like children's hospitals." (I should hope so.) But Doug points out that perhaps the departments that Brett wants to eliminate or fold under another department serve an essential service. In any case, eliminating whole departments cannot take place (responsibly) within a few days.

While we are talking about spending, MOST of us would agree that defense spending is something we should consider reducing dramatically. I put MOST in all caps, because there might be some who disagree. Nonetheless, the wars in Afghanistan and Irag are costing us enormous amounts of money that we can ill afford, and frankly with little benefit to show for it. Had I been an congressman at the time, I likely would have voted for the military action (war) in Afghanistan, and given the information available at the time I might have even agreed to going into Irag. In hindsight (always 20/20) I definitely would not agree to the invasion of Iraq, and might not even agree to going into Afghanistan. Though Bin Laden is now dead, it can be argued that he won that exchange.

Whatever else you think about the original motive for going into Afghanistan, it is clear that massive spending on both wars is a significant reason behind our deficit spending now. Then there is the question about the "illegal" war on Libya. Reasonable people (like Doug) find valid reasons for humanitarian intervention in Libya and elsewhere. I am inclined to believe this might be the case, but Brett has helped bring me back to my core beliefs (from when I was back in Kansas City) that war is wrong, anytime, anyplace. This is not necessarily a conservative view, but I applaud Brett for coming to and advocating for this position.

On the flip side, I posted a link to suggest the crisis is not one of spending, but a crisis of revenue. This is an area where I expect lots of differing opinions, so let me be clear that my own opinion is just that, opinion. As I see it, however, much of the current deficit crisis is a direct result of the Bush tax cuts. When we talk about letting these expire, the uproar is that if we raise taxes on the richest Americans again, they will withdraw and not create much needed jobs. I see no merit in this argument whatsoever. When the rich get tax cuts they do not spend it on new jobs. Period. When the rich are taxed they do not stop creating jobs as a result. The ONLY thing that they respond to is demand. If the middle class is spending, entrepreneurs find ways to meet the demand. Period.

This brings me to another underlying theme, which is the widening gap between the rich and the poor in this country. This deserves a post in its own right, but suffice it to say that this widening gap is not good for the economy, nor is it good for our society. I am not saying that it is the job of government to rob from the rich and give to the poor, but I do believe it is the role of government to establish policies that protect the poorest and curb the greed of the rich. That is a gross over-simplification, I admit, and a more nuanced analysis is called for. But I'm just sayin'.

Finally there is the issue of government regulation. I will just tell you that in my own industry (healthcare) I complain as much as anyone about unnecessary regulation, whether it is from "voluntary" organizations, such as the Joint Commission, or whether these regulations are from government such as CMS and the State Health Department. Such regulations often seem unnecessary and counterproductive. In my saner moments, I recognize that these regulations have served a HUGE role in improving healthcare overall in this country. For example, central-line infections used to be thought of as an unavoidable risk. Such infections are now rare and considered entirely avoidable, largely because that is the expected standard from a government agency. Despite my gripes, healthcare is better for it.

I agree that regulation can be excessive, and probably often is so. But I will also tell you that "voluntary" self-regulation has many, many examples of complete and miserable failure. Is there a middle ground? I should hope so, but those who advocate no regulation, government or otherwise, simply do not want to see reality. Yes, regulations sometimes get in the way of true progress, but they also protect the innocent from exploitation and worse.

So much for my soap box. I believe there is room for disagreement and civil disagreement. I welcome comments.