I think your reason for Congress’ relationship to the debt is love/hate. They “love” it because it maintains a status quo, chief among it, as you say, to divert wealth to the already rich, most especially banks, funds and insurance companies that hold trillions in federal debt and receive billions and billions in interest.
But there is also the “hate” aspect. Debt and, more appropriately, taxes are wonderful political pillars to maintain the vapid binary political “economic” arguments of the two-party system. One side says the other is taking too much from the government and that is the reason for the debt, while the other side says the debt is because the other side is not paying their fair share of taxes. Pick which side you want to be a part of…It’s a convenient and effective device for false binary arguments.
Great observation about the false dichotomy! I once advanced the argument during the debate on the state budget that before we could resolve how much to spend, we had to determine how much revenue there was to work with. The Majority Leader replied that it was the opposite; first we determine how much needs to be spent, then produce the revenue to match. I can see both sides clearly, but the real question is: what do we want government to accomplish? When we answer that, the rest falls into place.
I think your reason for Congress’ relationship to the debt is love/hate. They “love” it because it maintains a status quo, chief among it, as you say, to divert wealth to the already rich, most especially banks, funds and insurance companies that hold trillions in federal debt and receive billions and billions in interest.
But there is also the “hate” aspect. Debt and, more appropriately, taxes are wonderful political pillars to maintain the vapid binary political “economic” arguments of the two-party system. One side says the other is taking too much from the government and that is the reason for the debt, while the other side says the debt is because the other side is not paying their fair share of taxes. Pick which side you want to be a part of…It’s a convenient and effective device for false binary arguments.
Great piece Brian. Thank you.
Great observation about the false dichotomy! I once advanced the argument during the debate on the state budget that before we could resolve how much to spend, we had to determine how much revenue there was to work with. The Majority Leader replied that it was the opposite; first we determine how much needs to be spent, then produce the revenue to match. I can see both sides clearly, but the real question is: what do we want government to accomplish? When we answer that, the rest falls into place.