At its 2020 Annual Meeting, Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) approved its policy priorities for the 117th Congress. What’s missing? Any mention of cost associated with the priorities or any acknowledgment that priorities should be considered in relation to the enormous national debt. Given the progressive bent of FCNL, this is perhaps not surprising from an economic standpoint - but it’s still incredibly disappointing and downright irresponsible. Addressing debt is seen largely as a “conservative” issue, and one that (amusingly or distressingly) is only raised by conservative voices when a Democrat holds the Presidential office.
Even from a solely economic perspective, however, the intergenerational burden of the United States national debt ought to be a concern, and ought to be considered when weighing policy decisions. Robert Murphy offers a good overview of why the U.S. government cannot simply spend whatever it wants here, where he points out that:
The boring suits with their standard accounting are correct: it actually costs something when the government spends money. The fact that since 1971 we have had an unfettered printing press doesn’t give us more options, it merely gives the Fed greater license to cause boom/bust cycles and redistribute wealth to politically connected insiders.
Social welfare spending is not the primary driver of national debt, but it is not unconnected. As the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee (among others) points out, military spending has been – and remains – a large driver of debt in the U.S. The response to this from FCNL and other national Quaker organizations is largely to propose reduction of military spending and shifting that spending to policy priorities they would prefer – again with no acknowledgement that military funding is largely supported by continued and growing debt. One gets the sense that debt simply doesn’t exist, doesn’t matter if it does, and that federal government spending is an inherent good (if directed toward the “right” ends). Sadly, this perspective fails to effectively wrestle with the inherent violence necessary to impose taxation and the structures needed to maintain that imposition.
The flip side to warfare and militarism driving national debt is that national debt drives militarism. What is this relationship? While the link is rarely discussed, it is clear that the U.S. federal government is dependent on the continued purchase of U.S. debt to fund its expenses, and maintaining an extensive and globally distributed military serves as an ongoing incentive for the global community to stay in the good graces of the U.S. Consider the number of military bases the U.S. maintains throughout the world (in 80 countries).
The world’s greatest military power is also the world’s greatest debtor. Debt and militarism are inextricably connected. Unless we confront this reality, we will continue to willfully ignore the impact of our decision to seek federal spending on goods we think build the community we desire (whatever our political persuasion). Reducing national debt and limiting new spending should not just be a conservative political tool drawn out when convenient – it should be a goal for anyone with a concern for reining in the warfare-welfare state.
Even from a solely economic perspective, however, the intergenerational burden of the United States national debt ought to be a concern, and ought to be considered when weighing policy decisions. Robert Murphy offers a good overview of why the U.S. government cannot simply spend whatever it wants here, where he points out that:
The boring suits with their standard accounting are correct: it actually costs something when the government spends money. The fact that since 1971 we have had an unfettered printing press doesn’t give us more options, it merely gives the Fed greater license to cause boom/bust cycles and redistribute wealth to politically connected insiders.
Social welfare spending is not the primary driver of national debt, but it is not unconnected. As the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee (among others) points out, military spending has been – and remains – a large driver of debt in the U.S. The response to this from FCNL and other national Quaker organizations is largely to propose reduction of military spending and shifting that spending to policy priorities they would prefer – again with no acknowledgement that military funding is largely supported by continued and growing debt. One gets the sense that debt simply doesn’t exist, doesn’t matter if it does, and that federal government spending is an inherent good (if directed toward the “right” ends). Sadly, this perspective fails to effectively wrestle with the inherent violence necessary to impose taxation and the structures needed to maintain that imposition.
The flip side to warfare and militarism driving national debt is that national debt drives militarism. What is this relationship? While the link is rarely discussed, it is clear that the U.S. federal government is dependent on the continued purchase of U.S. debt to fund its expenses, and maintaining an extensive and globally distributed military serves as an ongoing incentive for the global community to stay in the good graces of the U.S. Consider the number of military bases the U.S. maintains throughout the world (in 80 countries).
The world’s greatest military power is also the world’s greatest debtor. Debt and militarism are inextricably connected. Unless we confront this reality, we will continue to willfully ignore the impact of our decision to seek federal spending on goods we think build the community we desire (whatever our political persuasion). Reducing national debt and limiting new spending should not just be a conservative political tool drawn out when convenient – it should be a goal for anyone with a concern for reining in the warfare-welfare state.