Why Isn't Our Only Debt a Debt of Gratitude?

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should co-operate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.

The above excerpt comes from President Washington's farewell speech\. This speech has come to mind multiple times during Washington DC's latest act of political theater.  Those words may have been spoken 217 years ago, but they are just as relevant today as they were then. In the meantime, our nation has gone deeper and deeper in debt. The last time we did not have debt as a nation was during President Jackson's tenure (in 1835). Our debt has waxed and waned over the years, but nonetheless, it continues to climb.

Why haven't our leaders taken to heart President Washington's words? They have not cherished the public credit. They have abused it--both parties. Both parties have decried raising the debt ceiling when their party is not in the White House while raising the debt ceiling seemingly without question when their party is in power. Washington believed that preserving the public credit means that debt should be incurred in rare circumstances. He also believed that the only times its should be utilized in during "unavoidable wars" as to not burden future generations.

However, just weeks ago our government was poised to get involved in a battle between two evils in Syria--clearly an avoidable war that would require billions in spending. Rhetorical battles continue to be waged in Congress over Obamacare--legislation that is poised to add billions to our national debt.   Other rhetorical battles are being fought over a resolution to fund a bloated, yet currently supposedly shutdown government and to raise the debt ceiling yet again.

In the midst of all these threats of avoidable and political rhetorical battles, there has been a neglect of those who have fought in true battles to preserve the strength and security of which President Washington spoke. During the shutdown of our bloated government, memorials honoring the fallen have been barricaded, benefits to families of the fallen have been threatened, and bodies of the fallen have not been shown proper respect. Some of these things have been rectified--either by politicians trying to save face or by the veterans themselves.

Earlier today during the worship service I participated in with my church family, a man--a veteran-- got up to give a brief message before we partook of communion. He spoke of the sacrifice of both Jesus and American soldiers-- one man who died to save our souls and the many men and women who died to protect our freedom. He noted a quote that one of his co-workers  has as an e-mail signature that reads something like this "there are only two entities who have given their lives for you expecting nothing in return". This, of course, alludes to both Christ and American soldiers.

We owe Christ a debt of gratitude that of course we can never repay. We owe American soldiers a debt of gratitude that we can poorly attempt to repay. Our political leaders must heed President Washington's word about cherishing the public credit. We should not continue accruing debt for bloated government, temporary programs that become permanent, and an ever list of increasing agencies, departments, and bureaus. Our only debt should be to those who have given of themselves to protect the freedom we have in this nation. A freedom that diminishes every time we add to a monetary debt rather than a humble debt of gratitude.

Crossposted here and here. 

The Fiscal Cliff--Compromising Our Founding Principles and Holding Hostage Our Future

As Democrats and Republicans discuss the media declared "fiscal cliff", there has been seemingly more rhetoric than ideas and more focus on political expediency than on principle. In other words, it's business as usual in Washington. Words such as "compromise" and "hostage" seem to be part of any press conference or speech surrounding the debate. Each party indicates a need for the other party to "compromise" so that a certain group, such as the middle class, is not held "hostage" by the other party's lack of "compromise". The fiscal cliff and the debate surrounding "compromise" and "hostage" holding are not static in our current political debate. Governor Palin was right when she noted last week that we've already reached the fiscal cliff, but what remains to be seen is how hard we're going to fall at the bottom.  The actual compromise is not a potential one between Republicans and Democrats, but the compromise that decades and decades of politicians of both parties have made with our Founding principles. Those who are held hostage are not solely the constituents of the present, but also future generations who will have to pay for the fiscal failures of the past and the present.

 The  media declared, nebulous "fiscal cliff" includes the potential tax increases that would occur if the Bush tax cuts were to expire and the large across the board cuts that would be enacted if sequestration was to occur. If no "deal" is reached, then the combination of tax increases and budget cuts are anticipated by some to exacerbate an already bad economy. In reality, as Governor Palin noted, our nation has already gone over the cliff because of burgeoning deficits contributing to a massive national debt. This is not because of inadequate taxation, but because of big government and poor monetary policy.

Spending has gone up immensely over the past three decades specifically. Per capita spending has gone from  just over $6,000 a year at the beginning of the Carter administration to nearly $12, 000 a year currently. Per capita spending stayed fairly constant at about $8,000 per person through the second part of President Reagan's tenure through President Clinton's time in office before increasing again during President Bush's tenure, as shown below in this graph posted at Reason. com:

The Bush and Obama administrations consistently have spent more than 20% of GDP, which was a rare occurrence in the previous fifty years. Under President Obama, there have been four straight years of more than a trillion dollar deficits, which has lead to his tenure generating more debt than the tenures of the first 41 president (George Washington through George H.W. Bush) combined. Additionally, President Obama has supported quantitative easing stimuli, which have devalued the dollar and negatively affected  both employment and interest rates. While President George W. Bush may have engaged in some pretty extreme "fiscal cliff" diving, Barack Obama has made Felix Baumgartner  seem like a risk averse wimp with the astronomic levels he has gone to in his"fiscal cliff" diving. All of this has lead to the current situation where leaders are trying to determine if our continued fall will include tax increases, mandatory spending cuts, increased borrowing or any combination of the three.

This spending has brought policymakers to a point where charged rhetoric is uttered more frequently than  actual solutions. The word "compromise" is thrown around frequently, which generally means that one party think the other party should abandon their principles to capitulate to them. However, the real "compromise" is one that leaders of both parties have made with our Founding principles of limited government and Founding documents like the Constitution.They all have sworn to uphold the precious document only to treat it as a disposable paper towel when they get in office. They  have compromised their oath for the sake of political expediency. President Obama has indicated that he wants complete authority to raise the debt ceiling  as part of a  "fiscal cliff" deal, which minority leader Nancy Pelosi supports as well. However, the Constitution clearly states that Congress holds the authority to borrow money, not the President. The power of the purse lies with Congress, be it to spend or borrow, yet our leaders continue to try to twist the branches of government where one branch can assume the role of the other and the balance of power becomes moved from its fulcrum.

Additionally, President Washington noted in his farewell address that borrowing money was to be done sparingly and generally only in times of unavoidable wars (emphasis added):

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

President Washington understood something that our recent and current leadership has ignored--who is really held hostage by the political decisions of today--future generations. Today's politicians act primarily out of political expediency recognizing that if they can make the other party seem like a hostage taker to a certain segment of the population, then it helps them politically. However, the hostage is not solely the current taxpayer, but future generations who will be paying for the fiscal failures and bloated government of past and present politicians. As Margaret Thatcher famously noted eventually you run out of other people's money. If debt continues to accrue and the dollar continues to devalue, future generations will have to pay the ransom for their own pre-determined capture.

G.K Chesterston once noted of political compromise, “[c]ompromise used to mean that half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf.” Whatever compromise (or capitulation) Democrats and Republicans come to (if they do), the check for the half loaf will ultimately be sent to future generations held fiscally hostage by the compromised leadership of our recent past and our present. We can only pray that someday our leaders will look to Thomas Paine's words as they make decisions, as Paine said, "if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace".

Crossposted here and here.

President Obama Funds a Government with an "Epidemic" of Sexual Harassment

As the Democratic National Convention got under way today, the Democrats trotted out in their vagina and "Pillomena"birth control costumes to denounce the so-called Republican war on women. Meanwhile the national debt passed $16 trillion today, with $5.4 trillion of that coming during President Obama's three and a  half years in office.

Nevermind all of that social and domestic economic policy stuff though, the Obama administration has foreign policy issues to attend to. As the New York Times reports:

 Nearly 16 months after first pledging to help Egypt’s failing economy, the Obama administration is nearing an agreement with the country’s new government to relieve $1 billion of its debt as part of an American and international assistance package intended to bolster its transition to democracy, administration officials said. 

 [...] 

 In addition to the debt assistance, the administration has thrown its support behind a $4.8 billion loan being negotiated between Egypt and the International Monetary Fund. Last week, it dispatched the first of two delegations to work out details of the proposed debt assistance, as well as $375 million in financing and loan guarantees for American financiers who invest in Egypt and a $60 million investment fund for Egyptian businesses.

Rather than focusing on reducing America's burgeoning debt, President Obama is extending debt assistance to a country who already owes us more $3 billion, as the Times article later states. But what's a billion dollars when one's administration has added $5.4 trillion already, right? President Obama had already bypassed Congress to give Egypt $1.5 billion in March when the then unelected Muslim Brotherhood already held power. Additionally, as noted above the Obama administration has been instrumental in facilitating an large IMF loan to Egypt.

Furthermore, despite the supposed war on women in America, President Obama is extending loan support to a country that recently elected a Muslim Brotherhood candidate to the presidency in June. This president, Mohammed Morsi, promised to select a female VP, but did not, only choosing women for aide and advisory roles. More appalling though, the election of the Muslim Brotherhood three months ago has lead to what the BBC calls an "epidemic" of sexual harassment (emphasis added):

 Campaigners in Egypt say the problem of sexual harassment is reaching epidemic proportions, with a rise in such incidents over the past three months. For many Egyptian women, sexual harassment - which sometimes turns into violent mob-style attacks - is a daily fact of life, reports the BBC's Bethany Bell in Cairo. 

 [...]  

 The day I met Marwa, she was wearing a long headscarf pinned like a wimple under her chin, and a loose flowing dress with long sleeves over baggy trousers.  

 But dressing conservatively is no longer a protection, according to Dina Farid of the campaign group Egypt's Girls are a Red Line.  

 She says even women who wear the full-face veil - the niqab - are being targeted.  

 "It does not make a difference at all. Most of Egyptian ladies are veiled [with a headscarf] and most of them have experienced sexual harassment.

President Obama adds to our debt to help ease the debt of a country that has a massive and real, sustained war on women. Meanwhile, this week, the Democratic National Convention will have women like Sandra Fluke, a 30 year free birth control proponent, speak on a faux war on women and pay homage to former Senator Ted Kennedy who was notorious for leaving a female companion, Mary Jo Kopechne, to drown after a drunk driving crash and for sexual harassing waitresses. Such blatant and out-of-touch hypocrisy.

However, none of this is any surprise to Governor Palin--often the target of the Democrats' misogyny herself. In February of 2011, she warned of the threats to women's rights (as well as religious rights) should the Muslim Brotherhood take control:

 

 While the Obama administration claims that such funding and diplomatic support to Egypt is aimed to assist the formation a new democracy, they do nothing of the sort when they aid an ideological group based on harassment of women and religious persecution. Crossposted here and here.