This is a long but very good column on America’s debt, deficit and budget plans going forward. It is worth the several minutes required to read it.
But the question I raise, one I have raised before, is this: Why should Democrats care about the Debt, and why do Conservatives continue to think that they do?
What seems to be the primary difference, indeed a foundational difference, between those currently pushing debt, and those reacting to the increase of same, is children – e.g. whether one has them.
People, including the author of the linked column, refer to the mountain of debt being left to future generations. Speaking grossly, of course, those advocating the programs resulting in that debt do not have children. This is true globally, of course. If one extends the Blue/Red state metaphor to countries in the West (and Japan), all Blue entities are in demographic decline, many in a final death-spiral from which no nation ever has recovered.
Simply, those voters demanding ever-more-spending do not have children who will pay-back that debt. Those of us who advocate for less spending do have children who, along with their progeny, will be paying back that Blue debt for generations to come.
We – parents – understand the disaster this debt will cause to the standard of living of future generations; Blue voters have no future generations to worry about – so they simply don’t care. Why should they? For them it truly is a ‘free lunch,’ forever.
Debt is demanded by those refusing to pay for it. Debt is rejected by those who will be paying its cost.
With 51% of the voters now non-taxpayers, it is doubtful this will change.
(This ought to be THE primary driver of all secession discussions. Blue states are knowingly, uncaringly destroying the futures of Red-state children through policies extraordinarily selfish and generationally dishonest. No reason exists for Red voters to continue to burden their children with lower standards of living to pay for programs that always and everywhere fail.)
Thus, these questions:
1. Why should Blue politicians or voters ever concern themselves with a debt they will never have to repay? And, lacking children, debt which their children never will have to repay?
2. Why is the assumption so broad that these two groups (parents, non-parents) share the same goals, when in fact, they do not?
3. Given the appalling (lack of serious) education in America, and the fact that we now are governed by extremes from both sides – which follows from a poor education, of course – what makes one think that the issues this author cogently addresses ever will be dealt with? Blues don’t care and Reds care more about abortion than the future only THEY are having progeny to populate, its debt, security, education, energy, etc., etc.