The Morality of Debt

Most of the news in the mainstream media lately has been devoted to Washington DC and the argument between Congress and the president over the debt ceiling increase. The Democrats insist that the country will crash and burn if we do not increase the nation’s capacity to borrow money. The Republicans are refusing to budge on the subject of increasing taxes and are attempting to tie any increase in the debt limit to a corresponding reduction in spending. Liberals counter that we simply cannot survive as a nation unless we continue borrowing at least 44 cents out of every dollar that we spend. Or, in other words, unless we spend more, borrow more, and tax more.

---

Amidst all of this debating, we have heard nothing regarding the moral aspects of such an immense debt burden. Fiscal conservatives have been making the point – albeit not terribly effectively – that that by racking up such a large amount of debt, we are placing a great burden on future generations. In all likelihood, little – if any – of this debt will ever be repaid. Think about it: With the federal debt at over fourteen trillion dollars, this works out to over FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS for every man, woman, and child in America. Put another way, every baby that comes into the world within the borders of the US is handed, immediately upon delivery, an invoice for $40,000 (well, not literally – and it is actually a shade over $43,000). But the bottom line is that, not only are we spending ourselves into oblivion, we are condemning the UNBORN to a burden of insurmountable debt. Individuals attempting to repay student loans know how difficult in is to try to earn a living on an entry-level salary while having to make payments on their college loans. But it isn’t just college graduates; it is every single citizen that carries a $40,000+ burden of debt. Is this just? Is it moral? Here is something else to consider: The liberals have attempted to demagogue any attempt by the conservatives to reign in entitlement spending - specifically, Social Security and Medicare. Television ads produced by the liberals depicted Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI, who drafted a proposed spending reform bill) shoving "Grandma" off of a cliff in her wheelchair. It may have been an effective ad appealing to the elderly, who are opposed to cuts in Social Security, but the ad has been especially effective appealing to liberals in general, who oppose spending cuts of ANY kind. But what the short-sighted demagoguery fails to illustrate is this: Grandma's children – and, assuming that we continue down the path toward insolvency, her grandchildren and great-grandchildren – will likely not have any Medicare and Social Security of their own. Our situation is now so dire that Grandma is going to have to learn to get by with less in terms of reliance upon government entitlements or, somewhere down the road, her progeny will. Take your choice. We will, at some point in the future, have to say, “Sorry, folks. There is no more money. You are on your own with regard to your retirement income and your health care expenditures.” How just and moral is THIS? In other words, are we, in the name of morality and compassion, to bankrupt the country so that Grandma and “the poor” can have their subsistence check from the government and their “free” health care? But what about all of the grandmothers and poor people that have yet to be born? Is it not morally reprehensible to fail to consider how we will provide for these individuals thirty, forty, fifty or more years down the road? Getting back to the notion of repayment of this debt: Is it moral to continue to borrow money knowing full well that the nation will never be able to repay it in full? Contrast this with personal finances: If an individual were to borrow far beyond his or her ability to repay and then were to continue to spend money by racking up credit card debt, it would be considered sinful – AND illegal. Such an individual would be charged with fraud for this kind of reckless fiscal behavior. Hence the reason that many economists liken these social programs to gigantic Ponzi schemes. The issue of the nation’s debt is not a new one; it has been handed off like a political hot potato for many years. The U.S. has been dancing for quite some time and it is now time to pay the piper. The House of Representatives is pushing the agenda of the majority of Americans who know that we simply cannot continue mortgaging our future and our children’s futures. President Obama refuses to acknowledge that cuts need to be made to federal entitlement programs. He and the Democrats insist that we continue on the path toward bankruptcy. Whatever cuts they propose are not only far too meager but they are misdirected; they do not address the root of our problem: We have painted ourselves into a corner financially through boundless entitlement programs. Not only is the immensity of the nation’s debt a fiscal issue, it is also a moral one. And dealing with it is something that politicians have shown time and again that they are unwilling to do.