For several years now I have worried — here on Common Sense and on Townhall — about the unsustainability of politician-incurred debt.
I’ve used the word “unsustainable” quite a few times. But too often I’ve simply called it “government debt.” I think I like “politician-incurred debt” better. For it’s politicians who have been unable to keep from over-spending.
And pretending that the consequent problem of debt is “impossible to solve in the current political climate.”
They’re wrong, of course. The “current political climate” is whatever people think and speak right now. Change the way we think and speak, and suddenly the impossible becomes possible.
But what do economists say?
Economists are notoriously able at the higher maths, such as simultaneous equations, symbolic logic and regression analysis. But the number of economists unfazed by the simple calculations to figure debt load and maintenance is almost as frightening as those figures.
Luckily, those ready to do the arithmetic of public debt are on the rise.
Take economist Veronique de Rugy.
Writing in Reason magazine, de Rugy succinctly offers up the numbers. America’s trillions in debt now surpasses half of Gross Domestic Product. Politician-incurred borrowing increasingly soaks up the limited capital available, undermining market recovery. She says politicians must “reform entitlement spending, put both military and domestic spending on the chopping block, and start selling off federal assets. Better to do it now than during a fire sale later.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
4 replies on “Economics vs. Politician-Incurred Debt”
Great article, Paul. You hit the nail right on its head.
“For it’s politicians who have been unable to keep from over-spending.”
No, the buck stops with the voters who elect and reelect the politicians who bring them the biggest pieces of pork (local spending) and the largest slabs of bacon (entitlements, grants, tax write-offs, etc.) If American voters truly disliked big-spending politicians, they would have voted-out known porkers and not elected new porkers. But, that’s not our situation. Time after time, voters choose politicians who spend the most. Our federal representatives spend tax dollars creating glossy brochures they mail to residents to exclaim about the wonderful benefits they brought to their states or districts. Politicians wouldn’t be bragging about pork and bacon if the voters truly wanted extra lean beef.
So, if you’re fed up with high taxes and a debt-laden government, look at yourself and your neighbors for the cause.
I agree with both of the above; but you forgot another item.
THE BILLIONS IF NOT MORE, WOED TO SU, BY OUR “ALLIES” – LIKE IRAN; RUSSIA; CHINA; SAUDI ARABIA (perhaps someoene could tell me why we have to subsidize the Saudi military- selling equipment, etc at less then cost? Or why we have been and had been giving them billiosn in aid? The same is true for South Korea and Japan- and Germany. Why are we paying to keep our troops there, to protect them? 65 YEARS AFTER WW 2 ENDED?
Note Japan and South Korea are two of the three (China is the other one) holder of US sovereign debt.
And why are members of Congress, who retire, or are retired-in their last months, allowed to take trips at government expense? Whya re ex congressmen given staff and other allwoances? perhaps, ending some of these perks, woudl save a few dollars. Probably more then a few
Can’t expect the foxes to beef up security on the hen house, even if the foxes used to be chickens.