Wednesday, 4th April, 2007
Bush is Budget-Challenged
President Bush warned Congress yesterday that if he does not receive an "acceptable" Iraq war funding bill by mid-April, U.S. military equipment and training will be threatened. Obviously he is basing this threat off of his own opinion of what is and is not "acceptable", which is why I use the term lightly. However, this warning is rather interesting when you take a broader perspective. I believe that this is a prime example of President Bush's disconnection with the middle class of America.
We all know that the Bush family is wealthy, and that our current president grew up in a privileged environment where committing to and sticking with a budget was probably less than important. As such, I believe it is difficult for him to fathom the idea of knowing what you can and cannot afford to spend, which is the source of the current disconnect between him and Congress on what is an acceptable plan. By proposing a bill that actually defines boundaries on war spending and further military action in Iraq, Congress is forcing President Bush to think like a "middle class citizen", where you can't always get everything you want and you actually have to worry about what you can afford to spend.
Of course I don't know why I should be surprised by this. After all, the Bush administration has never been overly concerned with balancing the federal budget or paying down the nation debt, unlike his predecessor. Ironically, by continuing to put the United States further and further into debt, President Bush is in fact placing the security of our nation at risk, the very thing that he wants to spend money to protect. In 2004 (the last data point currently available), an estimated 44% of our federal debt was held by people outside of the United States, with the majority of that percentage held by the central banks of other countries. As we continue to spend more than we can afford, these outside investors will continue to perceive their investments as a higher and higher risk, thus putting the stability and health of our entire economy in jeopardy.
Of course the argument is that we should cut back on spending for non-essential government programs instead (you know, like health care, retirement savings, education, etc.). If you think of the government as a corporation, then there are two logical responses to a budget deficit - cutting back on costs and increasing revenue. Obviously cutting funding for certain domestic programs would be one way to cut costs, but even corporations know that you can only cut so much and still remain effective. So what choice is there? Maybe if some of President Bush's glorious tax cuts were rolled back, the government would have more money available. But somehow I don't think that would be "acceptable" to him either.
I can't help but wonder if this attitude of "spend whatever you want to on something" is part of the reason so many Americans are faced with enormous amounts of debt. I know a lot of the blame falls on corporate America - after all, the vast majority of companies wouldn't succeed if people just bought what they needed or what they could actually afford. But I also wonder whether some people take the attitude that if it's alright for the government to spend more than they can afford, then it's okay for them to as well. Maybe it's time for the government to start setting the standard, showing some financial responsibility, and using affordability as a factor in making decisions on what to spend money on. And in process, maybe both Congress and President Bush can understand what it's like to be a middle class citizen in the United States.
Friday, 6th April, 2007
What would Jesus really do?
I ran across a powerful article on CNN today that really struck me. As Easter has always been a time of reflection for me, I think this article does a good job of bringing to light some of the issues that we as Christians should be thinking about, not just this weekend but all weekends. Whether you agree with him or not, it is still a good read.