The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Among the Reasons For Discomfort When Some Call the US a Christian Nation II

Posted on | February 2, 2010 | 8 Comments

by Smitty

The previous installment to this occasional series had to do with ObamaCare. It noted the fact that the rest of the Christians in the country are lovingly taken to the mat and given a pacifistic thrashing by the Amish example of refusing to let Caesar operate in Divine territory.

Sarah opens the door to discussion of the deficit/national debt:

We can no longer afford to kick the can down the road to the next generation. We need to have a serious discussion about our spending priorities before it’s too late. Commonsense conservatives have a sincere desire to work with the White House on these challenges, and we’re thankful for those in Congress making the offer to help.

For those Christians who “bind [God’s Word] for a sign upon your hand”, Deuteronomy 15:4-6 may be rather constricting:

…for the LORD shall greatly bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance to possess it:
Only if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all these commandments which I command thee this day.
For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee.

Certainly, we can’t go around proof-texting our way into blaming the victim. Let’s allow that, in the case of a declared war (should we ever, you know, adhere to the Constitution again) we may need to run a bit of a deficit. That would be a proper Federal function: protecting the country from foreign enemies.
Chronically, however, there isn’t an excuse. The nearest you could get would be “Well, that’s the way it’s been for 100 years.” Entitlement programs are our domestic enemy.
Let us not kid ourselves: getting the country off of the Crack Pipe of Debt isn’t going to be easy.

  • The taxpayers are going to have to demand it.
  • Some political leader (and Sarah herself isn’t spending the political capital just yet) is going to have to put their name to reform.
  • The laughter chorus will have to be mustered to chuckle (politely, not too loud) at the Eclownomists who, like false prophets of old, attempt tell us that debt doesn’t matter. Also, water can flow against gravity’s pull, with vigorous handwaving.
  • The population will have to be partitioned into:
      (a) Protected victims of the entitlement swindle, whom we will not hang out to dry,
      (b) People who are given an actual choice to participate in the (reformed, self-sustaining) swindle, at whatever the post-reform cost happens to be, and,
      (c) People my age on down who are simply told: “Yeah, the best of intentions ended up a perverse lie. Thank you for your interest in un-Constitutional experiments. Here is the bill to cash out those in category (a). Regret that it came to this.”

We all know where this national entitlement conversation is going. When breaking up from a soured relationship, I’m from the “Suck it up” school of thought. Those bitter cling-ons who pine for Socialist fjords should either move to Scandinavia or be allowed into category (b) above. Can’t chains be allowed in a free country? Only, please, let’s emancipate the rest of us from those chains.

Update: (h/t High Plains Blogger)

Related Economist article on National red ink.

Update II: (h/t Brutally Honest)

Obama_monument

How do you not include this?

Update III:
Marshall Auerback at the Puffington Host is an example of a false prophet at work:

Since the days of George Washington’s administration, national budget deficits and increased public debt have been the rule on all but about six very short occasions.

Avail yourself of the National Debt Road Trip, sir: it is only in the last century, when the Federal Reserve has provided easy currency debasement, that the thievery has been substantial.
This is a whopper, emphasis original:

In basic national accounting terms, government deficits equal non-government savings surpluses.

Hahahahaha. Great stand-up. Please steer clear of policy.

It is no coincidence that the budget surpluses of the Clinton years (wrongly trumpeted as a great fiscal triumph by President Obama) subsequently led to recessions: government budget surpluses ultimately restrict private sector demand and income growth and force greater reliance on private debt.

Look, I don’t believe a thing you say. I don’t believe the Federal Government is competent at accounting. I don’t believe the tech bubble was anything but a mirage. In fact, Auerback, my default position is the opposite of anything you say, and I’ll walk that back, should anything resembling common sense and sanity escape you. Looking at your L. Randall Wray recommendation, I see he is of the empirically disproven Keynesian school. *Yawn*. Oh, that pesky history.

Let’s consider a real-world example to demonstrate the President’s conceptual confusion on government deficits. We’re in a recession. Our American citizen who was working in a pie shop has lost his job even though his productivity was just as high during the boom years. As the recession intensified, pie demand fell, as did consumer demand in general. Fearing that their wealth holdings are not going to appreciate as quickly as they did in prior periods, households are saving more money out of their income flows.

The beauty of your ignorant approach is your emphasis on the present tense. Oops! We’re in a recession. No analysis as to the systemic drivers. Here’s one: your government is vampirically draining the economy! More suck is not the cure for suction, nitwit! Do you want improvement? Put a stake in the heart of the vampire. Don’t offer Vlad Keynes another vein.

But it’s not the same for a government. The government is the creator of a currency. It can spend now. It can also spend later. And it can service and pay back the debt without compromising anything. A government, unlike a household or a private business, can choose to exact greater tax revenues by imposing new taxes or raising tax rates.

Oh sure, the government can make us all rich rich rich. Just keep pluckin’ that chicken and stuffing the feathers wherever. Why don’t you go engineer something, Auerback, and disabuse yourself of this free lunch notion. Your theory is predicated upon a diminishing supply of rubes. We might believe you more if your name were, say, Bernie Madoff, but his wad is also shot.

Myths may constitute good grounds for literature, but they are a horrible foundation for sound economic policy.

In particular, Auerback, yours.

Category: Politics

Comments

8 Responses to “Among the Reasons For Discomfort When Some Call the US a Christian Nation II”

  1. Indentured Servant Girl
    February 3rd, 2010 @ 4:20 am

    Do your conservative Republican friends know you’re a Paulista?

    😉

    If you’re not, you certainly sound like one.

    RON PAUL 2012!

  2. Indentured Servant Girl
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 11:20 pm

    Do your conservative Republican friends know you’re a Paulista?

    😉

    If you’re not, you certainly sound like one.

    RON PAUL 2012!

  3. smitty
    February 3rd, 2010 @ 4:31 am

    I’m not a Paulestinian. His foreign policy, to me, is more a direction in which to move than currently feasible.

    But I cheer him on fiscal policy.

  4. smitty
    February 2nd, 2010 @ 11:31 pm

    I’m not a Paulestinian. His foreign policy, to me, is more a direction in which to move than currently feasible.

    But I cheer him on fiscal policy.

  5. Roxeanne de Luca
    February 3rd, 2010 @ 5:10 am

    Um… won’t Ron Paul be like 80 years old in 2012? While I’m sure that he’s in good shape, some of the criticism against McCain was that he was too old to be President.

    Now, I threw my vote to Ron Paul in 2008, mostly because I’m not a Huckster and Romney had suspended his campaign the day before the Potomac Primaries, but he’s just not going to be President.

  6. Roxeanne de Luca
    February 3rd, 2010 @ 12:10 am

    Um… won’t Ron Paul be like 80 years old in 2012? While I’m sure that he’s in good shape, some of the criticism against McCain was that he was too old to be President.

    Now, I threw my vote to Ron Paul in 2008, mostly because I’m not a Huckster and Romney had suspended his campaign the day before the Potomac Primaries, but he’s just not going to be President.

  7. Rich Fader
    February 3rd, 2010 @ 5:01 pm

    If there’s to be a bloodbath, let’s get it over with now.

  8. Rich Fader
    February 3rd, 2010 @ 12:01 pm

    If there’s to be a bloodbath, let’s get it over with now.