Both Speaker John Boehner, who is, of course, a Republican, and liberal Sojourners president and George Soros collaborator Jim Wallis have called the debt issue a moral one. The Acton Institute exists to address and help work through the moral issues that come up in a classically liberal society. National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez talks to its president, Rev. Robert A. Sirico, about the moral dimensions to the frenzy over August 2 and beyond.
KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: How should a prudent, discerning legislator look at the debt-ceiling debate?
REV. ROBERT A. SIRICO: There are three important things any legislator must base his decisions on: First, our responsibility to future generations requires that we keep our fiscal house in order. Second, the dignity of individual citizens must be protected by allowing wealth-creating institutions to flourish and respecting the importance of voluntary charitable associations. Third, he should remember the limits of the federal government as set forth in the Constitution.
Advertisement
Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This needs to be remedied, or we’ll face the sort of fiscal meltdown that has caused so much havoc lately in the European Union. Are America’s problems like those of Greece, Portugal, and Ireland? Not exactly. But we can cause severe economic problems with misguided policies that will suffocate growth, further depress job creation, and push millions farther away from any hope of rising out of poverty. Another more subtle consideration is to reflect on the impact such policies have on the culture — on individual initiative and the work ethic. It is not a bad thing for a society to have a cultural and moral bias in favor of productive work and to sanction the easy acceptance of charity and welfare payment when these are not necessary and when one can provide for oneself. That old-fashioned notion about the American Dream is what’s at stake today.
A prudent and discerning legislator will look down the road into the future and will vote in a way that allows America’s opportunity society to continue to flourish. Both a short-term and a long-term fix are needed in order to deal with the problem of our national debt.
LOPEZ: Is there something immoral about all this debt in the first place?
SIRICO: Of course, debt per se is not immoral. But to the extent that all growing debt decreases the economic opportunity of the next generation, yes, it’s immoral to keep piling it on. We’ve made this very clear at the Acton Institute with our “Principles for Budget Reform.”
There is no example that clearly highlights the lack of leadership today more powerful than the debt crisis in America. Too many leaders are unwilling to put the common good before the special interests and their own political careers. That is what is happening today in Washington and has been happening for a long time.
LOPEZ: Is there a moral read on the imminent downgrading of our credit rating?
SIRICO: To the extent that a downgrade reflects a real likelihood that the U.S. will fail to meet its financial obligations, the demands of commutative justice require that we take such a signal very seriously.
Does the good Rev. Sirico include in his theses the several Catholic arch-dioceses that have been driven into bankruptcy due to child abuse suit settlements?
For example, if we build a bridge that will last 20 years then debt financing for the life span of the bridge is acceptable because future people will benefit from the bridge. A 20 year bond to pay for the bridge is reasonable.
Debt financing for NPR, as an example, is a serious violation. Why should our grandchildren pay in the future so we can listen to Nina Totenberg today? This an unambiguous violation of the rights of future generations.
What we consume today should be paid for today. That which has a useful lifespan over many years should be financed over its lifespan. I finance my house but not my groceries.
Entitlement programs should not be shielded from these rules. Why should future generations pay for MY retirement or medical care? This is the great mistake that was made when financing SS and Medicare. If each generation paid for themselves then the differences in the ratio of workers to retirees (be it 17:1 or 3:1) would not matter.
Each generation takes care of itself and no future generation is burdened with the costs of previous generations for which their consent was never obtained. Furthermore it would be a powerful incentive not to squander the money because that is the money WE need today and not the money THEY will need someday far off in the future.