I'm not sure that there's much left to be said about the impending possible government shutdown, but I feel that I must at least attempt to sort through a few issues that have been bouncing around in my head.
First of all, just to put things in perspective, take a look at this interactive graphic of Obama's 2011 budget proposal. Move your little magnifying glass over to the "Transportation" section and toggle between the two boxes in the upper right hand corner of that section ("Airports and airways" and "Mass Transit"). The difference between the size of those two boxes - which is basically imperceptible when viewed as pieces of the [square] pie - is roughly what Republicans appear to be fighting for at the moment. (FYI - This graphic is a year old. I'm just using it to visually demonstrate the numbers being discussed.)
Now, you might say "If the difference is so minute, aren't the Democrats being just as petty?" No, they're not. Here's why. If you've ever bought or sold a house, you'll understand that the fiscal impact of small variations in purchase price impact the two parties in vastly different ways. When we purchased our home last August, for example, the seller had the price listed at an extremely reasonable $168,000. We considered making a first offer of $163,000. Why not? The market was in the toilet. Why not get the very best deal possible? At 5% over thirty years, that mortgage payment would have come in at $875. But then we crunched the numbers and realized that the payment on $168,000 was only $902. Now...it's not that $27/month is nothing, but $5000 out of the seller's pocket is a much more painful hit to take. We did the research and saw that they bought the house for $180,000. They were already taking a loss. We didn't feel that $27/month made it worthwhile to compound that loss. Maybe that makes us foolish, but then again...we can sleep at night.
Similarly, the $5 billion gap between Democrats and Republicans at the moment would have a seriously painful impact on some of the parties involved while having a negligible impact on the overall budget - especially when Democrats have already moved from $0 to $34 billion (a figure roughly represented by the "National Institutes of Health box in the upper right hand corner of that graphic). Again it's not that $5 billion is nothing, but in the broad scheme of things, it's comparable to our $27/month.
But these numbers - these ridiculously irrelevant, relatively paltry sums - are the least offensive part of this debate. I happen to be taking a course in biomedical ethics at the moment, so I have recently been immersed in Kant's categorical imperative, which, if you're unfamiliar, is really just a corollary of the Golden Rule. Whereas the Golden Rule says "Treat people the way you'd like to be treated," the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative says "Act only on the maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Another way of saying that might be "Live up to the rules that you wish to impose upon others." The GOP has proven itself incapable of meeting that standard. When they are in control, running up the debt on their wars and tax breaks for the rich is deemed acceptable. When they are out of power, any amount of debt is an unsustainable, existential threat - even when the bulk of that debt can be attributed to their policies.
Incidentally, these free-market crusaders ought to know as well as anyone that debt is a completely legitimate, important part of capital structure. Corporations of all sizes use debt on short and long-term bases, in good times and in bad. It is a crucial part of start-up costs, expansion, and weathering bad economic circumstances. They do, in fact, know this. That's why they feel comfortable incurring debt when it meets their particular ideological standards. If they truly felt that debt was the threat they say it is, they would not have - could not have - allowed our overseas adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the very least, they would be demanding our immediate withdrawal. After all, as John Boehner never tires of saying, "We're broke!"
Should we be tackling the skyrocketing debt? Absolutely. There is broad consensus that we need some shared sacrifice and smart long-term planning. But let's be intellectually honest about why we need those things. It is not because debt is inherently evil. We need shared sacrifice and smart long-term planning because we are in a period of serious economic distress. (I won't even make the easy arguments about how we got into such a period.) Such times call for serious solutions. Defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood are not serious solutions. Continually moving the line in the sand and demanding additional cuts is not a serious strategy. These are pathetic political attacks that attempt to take advantage of the circumstances while having no meaningful effect on the broader issues.
And now, a dose of soul for your day, from Jimmy Cliff - featuring some of my favorite backup vocals of all time (the actual recording off Cliff's Anthology is obviously better):
No comments:
Post a Comment