A Voice in the Wilderness In Defense of "Mere Conservatism"

Steyn On Debt-Ceiling Debate

The debates in D.C. over how much more debt our government is to accrue are, sadly, necessary.  Why are they necessary?  Because those we've elected to represent us have (for far too long) spent money we don't have.  They're forced to (finally) deal with this because our backs are to the wall.

What must not be lost in all of this is this fact: Not only have we let them, in most instances we've encouraged them.  We've asked for this, even by all the things we didn't say. Perhaps, especially because of the things we didn't say to our congressmen, senators and presidents.  At this point, most of us are so detached from the political process, from what it takes to run our country, that when serious fiscal matters like debt showdowns appear on our horizon we assume it can't be anything more than "politics as usual" in Washington.

I may be distilling the matter more than I should, but I believe it's truly that simple.

Mark Steyn, albeit it in a much more eloquently and informed way, agrees.

There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.

Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders.

Steyn goes on to describe where each of the respective sides are coming from.

On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.

And from the Right?

On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.

He continues:

Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.

You can read the full column here, and I highly recommend you do.

We may in fact have to end up raising the debt level.  The cost of decades of horrifically irresponsible governance, call it.  But when does the madness end?  Republicans aren't saints in all of this, but one political party has as one of its core tenets the perpetual increasing of debt, size of government, and likelihood that the whole thing comes crashing down.   If the people (Republicans) who promise to be fiscally responsible can be lured into spending money we don't have, what serious hope is there that the party promising to spend-and-tax more can be trusted with the governing of this nation?

Elections of consequences.  Perhaps it's time for a voters revolution, but this one doesn't require violence or protests or a war.

Merely an acceptance of the truth: it's not working, and "we the people" are the root cause.  Our selfishness, our indifference, and our "hands off", "eat, drink, and be merry" approach to self-government and the protection of our fragile liberties has caught up with us.

Time to get involved, folks.