The Catholic world has heard a lot on the errors of consequentialism over the past few years. My friend and colleague Mark Shea, in his characteristically subtle way, has often and rightly highlighted the dangers and error associated with this type of thinking, notably as a justification for torture.
For the uninitiated, consequentialsm states that any act can be justified as long as the intended outcome or consequence is good. For instance, you can torture somebody as long you intend to save lives. Saving lives is the good intended consequence that justifies the torture. In short, the ends justify the means. As Catholics we completely reject this moral theory.
To do something wrong, no matter the intended or even realized consequence, is to do something wrong. Period.
I think this principle is often overlooked when it comes to the matter of public spending and public debt.
Let us start with the basics of debt. Debt, in and of itself, is not immoral. But to knowingly incur debt, to borrow from others, with no reasonable or foreseeable means of paying back a debt or with knowledge that the debt will eventually have to be paid by others is wrong. Period. It is stealing.
As a country, we are either rapidly approaching or have surpassed the point where there is no reasonable or foreseeable means by which we can pay the debt we have incurred and continue to incur at a startling rate.
I don't think many, if any, would argue the point that if we continue to publicly borrow and spend at the current rate, we will eventually have to default on some of that debt or find ourselves in a currency devaluation spiral that in reality is just another means of default.
Even if the debt spending were to suddenly stop, a dubious proposition at best considering current political will, a great portion of the repayment of debt already incurred will fall upon future generations that will see little or none of the benefit. Presumably, that generation will have its own pressing issues for which the fruit of their labor will be required.
This is wrong.
Yet any time that even a modest proposal is put forth to restrict the rate of growth on a program, never mind an actual cut, it is treated with moral disdain by many politicians (predictable) and some in Catholic leadership (troubling).
The suggesters are variably accused of hating the poor, women, children, workers, the middle class, etc.
Can a case be made that some portion of these borrowed funds do good work? I believe that the bulk of this borrowing serves no other purpose than political cronyism and many of us artificially enjoying a lifestyle that we have not earned and cannot afford. However, for the purposes of this post, I will stipulate that some of these programs do actual good. But that good, whether big or small, does not justify continuance of the immoral act of borrowing what we know we cannot pay back, a.k.a stealing.
It should go without saying, although I will say it once here rather than fifty times in the comment box, that a just society and a just government must make every effort to insure that in a return to morally defensible spending, that the burden of the necessary cuts does not fall disproportionately on the poor or defenseless. But that said, these necessary cuts will hurt everybody, including the poor. But given the principle of proportionality just mentioned, the suffering of the poor does not morally justify continued deficit spending.
No matter how much we want to help the poor and no matter how much (or little) we think that this deficit spending helps the poor, we do not have the moral right to borrow money we cannot pay back. Period. To suggest otherwise is economic consequentialism. As Catholics, we must reject this error it in all its forms, even or perhaps especially the ones that make us feel good about ourselves.
Comments
Post a Comment
“Pay no attention to that demographic time bomb behind the curtain!” And for goodness sake, don’t do a Google search for the phrase “Weimar Republic hyperinflation.” Nowadays feelings are more important than facts, and we feel everything will be fine. So stop being a party pooper, Pat.
www.MerryCatholic.com
Everyone paying a mortgage owes a long term debt. Defense is 24% of the Federal budget. Maintaining our nuclear 5000 plus warheads costs $35 billion a year. Why does no one find that excessive as they find medicaid excessive. I have one shotgun for home defense. There are people who have fifteen guns for home defense. Two is reasonable in case of jamming. Gun collections can out of hand…likewise with our recent non combatant republican candidates and the defense budget. On whom will we be raining 5000 nuclear missiles? We need a third party….one that wants to reign in welfare and missile waste.
Excellent article, and a very important point. This point along with the intended role of govt is the key, IMHO. In a govt of the people and by the people, the role of the central govt must be limited and powers enumerated, as the Constitution states. Charitable services and human services among other things are best handled at the state and local level., instead of by those 536 people in DC. Isn’t this taxation without representation? I digress. Once we become with the true role of the federal govt, many of these discussions will no longer be necessary.
Interesting observation, Pat. I’ve always looked at spending from a logical or political perspective. To turn it around and see it from a moral perspective adds a new level of appreciation. I also like that you did not single out specific programs that you feel should be cut or saved. It prevents others from making straw man arguments and focusing on what you want to “take away” from people (who are only “getting” stuff that was, by definition taken away from someone else). As you point out, debt itself is not wrong, be it short term or as bill bannon mentions in his comment, long term debt. But entering into any contract that you know can not be fulfilled is wrong.
Merry Catholic, your point about the demographic time bomb is true! Mother Teresa warned us decades ago that abortion would ‘impoverish us’. I guess the prophetess was right!
Pat is partly right and partly wrong.
Some of his bold statements are overstated. Period.
Governments are different from individuals when it comes to debt. Stable nation states will probably never die (barring conquest or revolution). Unlike individuals they will probably live beyond 70 years and be able to generate fresh income for more than 40-50 working years. Nation states are not expected to retire on a reduced income either. A major government defaulting on its debt is much less likely than an individual. Don’t forget that much of the present crisis is caused by governments worldwide bailing out banks to save uncontrolled capitalism.
Some Governments never offer to pay back the original debt eg with UK Undated Gilts, the UK Government only guarantees to pay interest at fixed intervals, with effectively no undertaking to repay the original loan! Those who buy and trade these Gilts do not believe the government is stealing from them, but are happy with indefinite interest.
Governments borrow money for two reasons. For short term cash flow eg daily or monthly expenditure might not always balance, even though annually it might. Long term borrowing ought to be for investment with a realistic prospect of increasing income so that it eventually matches expenditure.
The problem, particularly with the US, since Reagan’s vodoo economics, has been a failure to match income to expenditure. Tax cuts every year cannot be squared with static or increased spending. Yet politicians who promise tax cuts get elected.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2008.png
Only President Carter seems to have reduced spending and increased income.
Many European countries, with much higher social and welfare spending have nowhere near the debt of the US, because they more nearly balanced their budgets with high tax and high spend. It’s a national choice, but over the long-term balancing the budget is necessary.
Republicans often claim the need to reduce expenditure (pointing to social welfare and health, but ignoring the military) while refusing to countenance increasing taxes even for the richest 1%.
Balancing the US budget is probably only possible by reducing expenditure AND increasing taxation.
see the charts on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Leo
I strongly disagree with your observations regarding debt and Carter’s administration. The system is much more complex and multi, faceted. Fundamentally, the federal govt has exceeded its limited and enumerated powers. For some time it had functioned more like a social democracy for decades. Both parties seek to preserve the level of government and increase it.
I know this comment is off topic, but i felt compelled to reply. Americans must assume their authority that lies within the states. Americans must wake up and learn that DC will never fix DC..
“I don’t think many, if any, would argue the point that if we continue to publicly borrow and spend at the current rate, we will eventually have to default on some of that debt or find ourselves in a currency devaluation spiral that in reality is just another means of default.”
I might have to disagree with this. Part of the problem is likely due to the fact that many folks, to possibly include those making the laws, actually do believe that we can spend ad infinitum and it will never lead to a collapse or default. There may actually be a troubling number of folks who either fail to even consider the idea of future consequences of unrestrained spending, or if they do consider it, brush it off with the assumption that the government is invincible, the money will always just be there, we can always just tax the rich more, etc.
Some also drastically overestimate the ability of tax increases to offset trillions in spending, not realizing (or ignoring) the fact that even gigantic tax increases on the wealthiest wouldn’t even put a dent on our deficits. It would be like trying to get more work done by staying at the office an extra 60 seconds each day; it would make a miniscule, pretty much unnoticeable difference, but some folks just don’t get that.
The consequences are widely unconsidered, ignored and/or simply not believed. It’s quite troubling, but I disagree with the notion that not many people would think we will never default or face any serious consequences.
Bfas99:
Excellent point. Many people in conversation will say;“govt can afford it.” I agree many are unaware that govt spends every penny each year. Actually, there is a great initiative, the national debt relief amendment (NDRA) to curb the debt. See www.restoringfreedom.org
bfas99 and others -
Your observations about the cluelessness of the populace concerning government debt and rampant overspending are right. In just one issue of The Wall Street Journal (1/9/13), several very troubling stories outlined various aspects of the problems we face. Just a sampling:
1. State of Illinois is $95 BILLION in the hole for government pensions promised, and the debt is rising by $17 MILLION every single day. State government cannot seem to take any actions.
2. Numbers of children under age 10, as a percentage of population, have fallen precipitously in many states, with dire economic future consequences.
3. Page after page of bad news from Europe - societal and economic decline in Greece, France and Ireland…
I am not shilling for the WSJ, but any informed person can see that we are on a very bad economic trajectory. Perhaps it’s a good thing that most people do not comprehend our situation, except that those ‘low information voters’ are the folks who exacerbated our problems with the bad choices they made in the recent national election.
Unfortunately our constitution has been ignored for some time now and the Central Government has been acting like it created the states rather than the other way around. What can be done? It seems that with articles like the one the other day in the NY Times and president who distains the constitution we are in for a steady slide into history as we approach the final transititon from Republic into Empire. Belloc’s “The Crisis of Civilization” outlines the 500 year trends in history since Christ was born. It would seem that politically we are entering a new phase and our American Experiment has run out of gas.
Elfego:
You speak to have of the truth, IMHO. It is true that our God given rights are sacrosanct, while the Constitution is not. The Constitution does not give us our rights; it merely states what they are in the document. Of course many in DC ignore the Constitution, but that does not mean it is dead nor does it mean that the States and its people have no authority. Since when should we give credibility to a bully? The reality is that we do have authority and to assume that authority takes commitment.
What most of us have never been taught, is that there were some Founding Fathers that secretly preferred a top down govt. Hamilton is most known for this. Further, only two years after the Constitution was ratified that the central govt moved out of control. Ten years later, we had the tyrannous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Later in the 1800’s the Supreme Court in Marbury v. McCullough ruled on its own doctrine instead of the text of the Constitution. Later, Lincoln defied the Constitution when he waged war on his own people instead of agreeing to peaceful alternatives. Our history depicts these aggressors as heroes.
My point is that the central govt has sequentially taken steps to exceed its limited authority and to usurp authority from its people. Until we learn to assume our rights, our intended authority, and stop playing the game by the DC rules, then nothing will change. Today, there are many State based initiatives such as , nullification and Article V that are very real. The DC crowd and even the NCR will refer to them as a symbolic display, yet this is simply not true. for decades, many States have passed laws and resolutions that nullify federal laws as holding no bearing in their state via the 10th amendment. Have a look at the www.tenthamendmentcenter.com
Our God given rights are sacrosanct. I do not need to be told that i have them. If we acknowledge our authority, then we are called to perform civic duty which goes well beyond voting. Perhaps the lack of civic engagement is the problem. Many like to complain and then find some way to justify doing nothing.
Well, you won’t have any argument from me, Pat. Unfortunately, you cannot make points such as you have without expecting disagreement, when instead people ought to be calling you Captain Obvious and wondering why you’re bothering to say something everyone already knows.
.
We seem to start from the needs (real or imagined) of society when instead we should start from the resources we have available. We just can’t do everything. We need to accept that or we’re going to destroy this country.
.
I want to take your argument and extend it, though I know I won’t win any friends here for doing it. You wrote, beautifully, “Let us start with the basics of debt. Debt, in and of itself, is not immoral. But to knowingly incur debt, to borrow from others, with no reasonable or foreseeable means of paying back a debt or with knowledge that the debt will eventually have to be paid by others is wrong. Period. It is stealing.”
.
I’m gonna say it - yep - college students. Include their co-signatory parents if you like. A friend of mine who just graduated recently and was thus faced with the problem of re-paying $70,000+ in student loans expressed her incredulity that her student loan company, whom she had contacted on the matter, would not accept re-payment on the terms she wanted. She said, “I’m obviously trying to do the right thing and be a responsible person.” Except she wasn’t. She was never really interested in re-paying her student loans. All along, either the student loan company was going to meet her demands out or someone else was going to bail her out. It’s not like she knew the kind of tuition her college was charging her. I don’t believe she’s really convinced it’s her responsibility to pay for the outstanding education she received at a top notch college.
.
I think this is another area where a lot of people need to work together (parents, teachers, students) to realistically start from what resources you have and seeing what you can do with them. It’s amazing to me that so many of us can let eighteen year olds make $70,000 investments, at 11% interest, without thinking long and hard about a realistic and achievable plan to honor that investment.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.