Long time readers of YSDA will know that I’m somewhat spirited in my opposition to forgiving college debt. I’ve got a dozen or so reasons for that, but the primary one is that people should keep their promises, not to mention their legal obligations. You took out a loan. You promised to pay it back. So, pay it back.
The same sort of argument applies to everyone, including me. I enjoy the benefits of government. In the case of the Federal government that means national defense, national parks, Interstate highways, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and a whole lot more. That stuff’s not free. I need to pay my share.
So, why on earth should I get more tax breaks simply because I’m on the older side? If I expect youngish college grads to pay their debts, why should I not have to pay mine?
So, I just don’t get why Trump and the House Republicans want to give me an extra $4,000 on my standard deduction. Well, okay, I sort of do understand it. Older people vote. But there’s no legitimate public policy reason for this, which would cost the Federal treasury about $72 billion over ten years. Our nation runs an annual deficit of over $1 trillion a year and our cumulative debt is now over $36 trillion. So, in a sense, I’m not even paying my way now. Why should I pay even less?
In fact, there’s little about Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” that makes any sense at all. On this I find myself in half agreement with Sen. Ron Johnson and the Republican extremists. I agree with them that we shouldn’t be adding to the debt. But if they were serious about that then they’d oppose not only this sop to older voters but the whole tax cut proposal.
Even with all the spending cuts, mostly to social programs, the tax cuts would far outpace them and add another $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. That will go up to $5 trillion if the temporary provisions are made permanent. And that additional $4,000 deduction is scheduled to go away after a few years. What are the chances that any Congress is going to allow that to happen given all those senior votes?
Those young people who took out college loans should pay back their debts. And older folks, like me, should pay what they owe for running the government. Simple as that.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
What makes sense economically does not make sense politically. A bug of Democracy or a feature?
LikeLike
I agree with our host, this whole bill is terrible. But it doesn’t have to be this way in a democracy. We’ve had budget surpluses in the past. The main problem is the mutually-exclusive political positions that Cons have staked out (reduced taxes and reduced deficits).
If the deficit was really the albatross the Tea Party folks make it out to be, they’d be calling for higher taxes in addition to reduced spending. They could EASILY get a coalition going with Ds to achieve budget surpluses if they’d be willing to compromise. And if the debt is the existential problem they claim it is, a compromise to solve it would be a no-brainer. Ds are far from being absolutist – they’ll compromise with Cons even when they don’t need to. They would jump at the chance to solve the deficit “problem.”
But this hasn’t happened. Not because of democracy, but because of the perversion of democracy in our 2 party system. Cons need issues that get voters hyped, and the debt scare-mongering works on a big enough slice of the population, who they already know have no other option they will consider at the ballot box. They CAN’T solve it, that would take away their election issue! It’s not an actual problem, it’s an issue dressed up as a problem.
The House Cons passed the debt increase, letting just enough posture with a no vote while still passing the bill. The same will happen in the Senate, unless enough fear getting voted out over the social service cuts. They know they won’t be voted out over the debt issue. Debt-voters talk a big game, but they are reliable R voters no matter what Rs do on the issue – it appears to be more of a front than anything: the “debt problem” can always justify spending cuts, but never tax increases… perhaps the spending cuts are the real goal. Spending cuts typically weaken the lower classes and in turn strengthen the position of the oligarchs: the more desperate the poor, the better. Better for Capital, worse for Democracy, win-win.
LikeLike