US Debt: Political Expediency Exemplified
The current intransigence within Congress over the US debt crisis is another wonderful example of political self-centredness, to help us learn and grow.
It is extraordinary to watch this polarisation of bureaucratic obduracy, with one party insisting on deep spending cuts without any tax raising measures, the other party demanding a solution through taxing the rich in order to protect existing welfare programmes. Both approaches are based on an idealism so deep rooted it is almost fundamentalist in nature, but with expediency at the heart of the standoff: with elections looming in 2012, the politicians wish to please their voters.All solutions to the debt problem under consideration, including a possible compromise, involve raising the current limit, which to my unqualified mind means that the problem of resolving how to repay the ever-growing debt remains still. No individual or company would be allowed to borrow in this way: the money supply would have been cut off long ago.
Meanwhile, the impasse has major global ramifications. Whatever the outcome, however clever the presentational packaging of a solution, America will continue to have a serious economic situation, probably a default, perhaps by another name, which will affect not only her own citizens but also all international economies, causing global turmoil with serious repercussions for everybody. Life will never be the same again, and it will be good – but the change need not have been achieved so drastically as now is likely.
Examples of political expediency overshadowing the desire to do what is in the interests of the greater good over the long term are not confined to the US and its debt crisis. We have seen it recently in the decision-making in the EU over Greece and the maintaining of the Euro, and we will see more of this sort of selfish short-termism in the future. In the end, it is a choice between what is in our foreseeable self-interest and what benefits our community for its long-term greatest good. The first approach is bound to failure, while the second will bring transitory pain but permanent reward, at every level.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
Marta Freundlich
said:
|
... Dear Claire I just want to make an observation regarding your comments on the debt ceiling debacle in the USA. I agree that politics is playing a massive role in this game but I think it is unfair to say that both parties are so polarized. For one, most democrats do want to go forward with spending cuts and increases in tax revenues (though not so massive as the ones cut for the first time by the previous president), and secondly, many republicans do accept that the reformation of the tax code is needed. Unfortunately the plan that had been worked on by the White House and Speaker, and others put forward by bipartisan groups, have fallen under the ultra conservative axe. Both sides are beginning to understand that the debt limit must be raised before cuts can be implemented because of commitments already made. Just as a family getting into financial constraints must try to rebalance their debt before defaulting, looking at ways to bring in more revenue and cutting spending (remembering that many cuts result in lower revenue), so must the government of the USA. I understand my partisan viewpoint in all of this and apologise if it has clouded my thinking. With love and gratitude Marta |
Show/hide comment form