I’m sick and tired of hearing progressive icons like Bernie Sanders, Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz, and many, many others, talking about the evil of leaving an enormous national debt, now at $13 Trillion plus to our Grandchildren. And I’m especially tired of hearing Congresspeople and Senators complaining about this. The reason why I’m tried of hearing it is that it is Congress’s fault that we have a national debt at this point in our history. And also Congress can largely get rid of this debt over a 10 year period any time it wants to.
The national debt exists today because when the nation went off the Gold Standard in 1971 and adopted its fiat currency system, Congress did not repeal its mandate, very appropriate when our currency was convertible to Gold on demand, in least in theory, requiring that the Government back all its deficit spending with already existing borrowed dollars whose convertibility was covered by our holdings of Gold. This Congressional mandate to borrow funds by issuing debt instruments, is what has caused the national debt to persist. Had Congress repealed it when President Nixon took the country off the Gold Standard, and had we ceased to issue debt at that time, then the Government would have re-paid all of our 1971 debts as they came due, and our national debt today would be zero and our debt-to-GDP would now be at 0%.
The Congressional mandate to issue debt when the Government deficit spends has no useful function today, and the interest income it provides for mostly wealthy investors and foreign Governments who buy Treasury Securities is simply a form of welfare for the rich. Any positive effects it produces are vastly outweighed by the bad effects of having to cope politically and economically with the concerns of people who believe that the increases in the debt, and the debt-to-GDP ratio give us a fiscal sustainability problem whose priority outweighs everything else. The national debt is a political problem. It magnifies the political strength of conservatives and weakens progressives because it makes people afraid to deficit spend since then the country will be “going into debt.”
Congress needs to repeal the mandate forcing the Government to issue debt instruments on a dollar for dollar basis with deficit spending, right now. If it does so it will:
– cease to provide welfare payments mainly for the rich and foreign nations,
– gradually pay off the $13 plus Trillion Federal debt entirely,
– have rapidly decreasing Federal interest costs over the next decade until they entirely disappear,
– have no further need to take difficult votes about increasing the Federal debt limit,
– have no further need to worry about borrowing money from the Chinese, or the oil rich states, or the Japanese, that our grandchildren will one day have to re-pay,
– have no further need to worry about what the bond markets think or are going to do, or
– to worry about our debt or deficit spending being “fiscally unsustainable” when we want the Government to spend money to sustain the unemployed, help us end unemployment altogether, fulfill American needs for new infrastructure, develop a re-invented first class educational system, and provide Medicare for All, among our other needs.
If Congress refuses to remove its requirement to issue debt, when it can easily do so at any time, then it’s habitual complaints about its size should cease at once and no longer pollute our political debates. The United States has many very real problems which it can help to address with Government programs. The deficit spending required to solve our problems shouldn’t be constrained by the non-existent problem of that national debt, or the fantasy of stabilizing a debt-to-GDP ratio that also represents a non-existent problem. To make sure that it’s not, Congress needs to repeal its debt issuance mandate now before the American people learn the truth that Congress, itself, is responsible for all the angst we hear about the deficit, the debt, and the debt-to-GDP ratio.
(Cross-posted at All Life Is Problem Solving and Fiscal Sustainability).



7 Comments

Yeah, this debt problem goes back a long way, every Congress and President going back to the Nixon era has been irresponsible about this, not to mention pretty much everything else.
Recc’d. Thanks letsgetitdone.
Can you still edit this part of the sentence Joe?; “The Congressional mandate to issue debt when the Government deficit spends has no useful function today,”;
All I can add is that the Congress is now full of people who have benefited from the requirement.
This was something I posted in a Jim Moss diary:
http://www.salon.com/news/populism/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/07/lind_american_people
I probably should write a diary on it, but I’m just too pissed off at the moment and trying to get people to sound off about what’s happening to Assange and this stupid and dangerous ‘tax deal’.
Trouble is no one in congress understands the basic facts about how the monetary system works. Not even Bernie Sanders. He’s forever going on about how the Bush tax cuts “blew up the national debt.” That may be true but its not the main reason why they were bad.
Kucinich is at least plugged into the idea that the government monopoly of the currency could be used to drive public purpose, but I doubt he’s conversant with MMT.
And those are the best we have.
Spending stimulates the private sector, even with debt issuance.
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/11/yes-government-bonds-add-to-private
We need more spending for productive purposes, but what’s the best way to get past the public conditioning about “the debt?”
Will it be easier to teach the difference between “good deficits” and “bad deficits” or to get them to understand the arbitrary nature of the debt itself?
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/11/yes-government-bonds-add-to-private.html
Hi Rusty. yes, I think that’s right. What happened to Congress in the years after Nixon resigned? We used to have some great people in it. Now you can count ‘em on the fingers of two hands (I’m being generous!).
Thanks Bruce, Maybe a lot of people in Congress do benefit from it, but that’s not something I’ve researched, so I didn’t say it.
The Lind article is a good one. In my Ph.d. days I spent a good bit of time studying Willim Kornhauser’s Politics of Mass Society, and had considerable sympathy for the idea that Democracy requires mediating voluntary organizations between the individual and the State. Lind is pointing out that the mediating organizations have largely disappeared since the 1950s and that’s what accounts for our change into a society in which consent is managed and manipulated by elitist organizations which use the findings of Cognitive Science to interfere with the cognitive functioning of voters.
I think that one of the things the Interactive Voter Choice System can do for people is to re-create mediating social networks, voting blocs, and electoral coalitions in the form of self-organizing voting blocs at local, state, and Federal levels. That’s one reason why I’m increasingly committed to the IVCS. It’s also another perspective on the IVCS and why it may be the one thing we must have to take back our democracy from the plutocrats.
Hi wilvick, You’re right. One of the people who in getting under my skin led to this post was Bernie. For a “socialist,” he sure is the least enthusiastic one I’ve seen in this country when it comes to deficit spending. There’s no excuse for his ignorance because it’s undermining his ability to really go out there and fight for people. Dennis may know about MMT, or at least be familiar with it. I thought I heard someone comment on that at the Fiscal Sustainability Conference held last April.
As for what will be the easiest way to convince people that the debt doesn’t matter, I think it would be to repeal the mandate as I’ve proposed. If we can get that through, the debt will begin to decline even during the first year. By the end of year two, the short term debt would be gone and everyone would understand that the debt is no problem. The whole debate over austerity and government solvency would shut down.
Instead the debate would shift to a conflict between full employment vs. inflation, and “good deficits” vs. “bad deficits.” That’s a debate that liberal have won in previous times, before the issue of the deficit became the main focus of concern in the Carter Administration. Maybe we’ll even get a chance to talk about Government spending the public purpose. That would be great!
Oh, btw, MSNBC has one of the talking empty heads on, Rick Newman, of US News and World Report, talking about the tax cut deal and referring to the serious long-term debt problem.