I would argue that it is possible to be a deficit panda: to simultaneously worry about the debt and believe in an active and compassionate role for government. In fact, I would argue that worrying about the debt is required of those who believe in such a government role.Amen, Ruth, although I would suggest that moral prudishness is the first-order solution to poverty and the government is a second-order solution. That is, without prudish behavior, the government is, at best, a band-aid on a large, deep wound. Still, a safety net saved from the depredations of interest payments on a preposterous debt is something we can all cheer.
Failing to deal with the debt will hurt everyone, but the neediest will suffer the most. The economy-wide consequences of doing nothing - higher interest rates, slower economic growth, lower standards of living - will hit hardest those least well off. Meanwhile, the budgetary reality of mounting interest costs will eat away at the government's ability to provide a reliable safety net.
Whatever our disagreements, her article is worth reading in toto.
2 comments:
Sorry, but I'm in a cynical mood this morning. I'm sure she just wants to raise taxes. Then she can stop worrying about the deficit and resume increasing the size of entitlements.
The important thing is that she's talking about it like it's a problem. Like AA says, the first step on the road to recovery is admitting you've got a problem. The fact that she's breaking away from the feckless Barack Obama / Harry Reid wing of her party is an good thing.
Post a Comment