Skip to main content

The Return of the Dreaded Debt Monster

Yes, January 20th will be a big day. Yes, Donald Trump will step down, or be forcibly removed, or something. Yes, Joe Biden will be sworn at — oops, sworn in — as president.

But that day will be eventful for another reason. It will mark the official return of the Debt Monster — that terrifying creature that eats your future and steals from your grandchildren, but never shows its face until Democrats take control of the government. You can hear the snarls already.

As we all know, the national debt signals the end of the world as we know it, but only to Republicans. And only when Democrats are in charge. In Republican administrations, the debt doesn’t matter in the least. Nor does the deficit, which isn’t the same thing, but for now let’s use them interchangeably.

Republican administrations unfailingly add to the national debt — and as aggressively as they can — while taking great care not to let any of the benefits trickle down to taxpayers like, say, you.

The national debt now stands at roughly $27 trillion, and Republicans are saying “What, me worry?”

But on January 20th, a switch will flip, and Earth will once again slip out of its orbit. Listen for the carping as they excoriate those wasteful Democrats for not immediately paying off the debt Republicans ran up.

Joe Biden will enter office with a rather long list of neglected emergencies to attend to. But the chorus of dire warnings about the Debt Monster will almost surely drown out any reasonable discussion of anything meaningful. Except, possibly, confederate monuments and Hunter Biden’s taxes.

By all rights, we probably should have spent an extra $5 trillion this year. That was an intelligent estimate being floated six months ago for what it would take to begin to put the country back together from the twin catastrophes of Trump and Covid.

By now, it should be twice that much. Instead, it won’t even be a fifth. We’ll most likely be getting an anemic $900 billion. And that comes begrudgingly, from Republicans whose indifference to death never fails to shock.

There are lots of things that $900 billion won’t cover, but the one that really jumps out is aid to the states, which are desperate for an infusion of cash, lots of it, and soon.

Every governor — red state and blue — will soon go into the red. If they’re not already. Payrolls won’t be met, teachers will be laid off, schools will be closed. Funding for police, fire, and sanitation will dry up. Public health — a fairly hot topic at the moment — will be shuttled to the sidelines.

Mitch McConnell doesn’t give a shit. When he calls emergency aid “a bail-out of blue states,” there are no words to describe how vicious a lie that is. Especially when you remember how many red states — like his own Kentucky — take far more from the federal government than they contribute in taxes. It’s blue states that bail out red states — and both are screaming for help.

Mitch has it exactly backwards. Which pretty much describes his whole party’s behavior over the last forty years.

Mitch is more than willing to let hundreds of thousands of people die so that billionaires can enjoy their tax cuts. His contempt for the dying clearly extends to his own constituents, the ones who just re-elected him. When he calls himself the Grim Reaper, he thinks he’s making a joke. In reality, nobody spreads the death around like Mitch.

But then, Mitch knows what’s really important — or at least he will in another few weeks: the debt.

So what do we do about the Debt Monster when it wakes from its four-year slumber? What do we do about the piggy Republicans, wallowing in their own hypocrisy?

The first thing we can do is forget about the hypocrisy. You can scream yourself hoarse about the two trillion dollars that Republicans blithely gifted to corporate America, but most people don’t even understand the hypocrisy. And if they do, they don’t care.

I know, it’s galling. But there’s a new survey from Vox that illustrates what actually does work.

Apparently, when people are asked about the national debt — with no context to the question — they consistently say it’s a bad thing, and in need of attention. That’s dead wrong, but not surprising.

But when you give it some context — when you tell them what that debt is buying, when you ask them to choose between the debt and other possible priorities — their attitudes change dramatically.

When they’re asked to compare the importance of the debt to, say, the importance of a robust Covid relief bill — it isn’t even close. Two-thirds of respondents say we can’t spend that money fast enough.

The responses are almost exactly the same when it’s the debt versus expanded unemployment benefits. Or the debt versus another round of $1,200 checks. Or versus aid to state and local governments. Or Covid testing, or fast access to vaccines, or adequate resources for schools.

To each of those choices, two-thirds of respondents said, in so many words, show me the money.

The survey didn’t ask about universal health insurance, the climate crisis, infrastructure, reproductive rights, or racial injustice. But other polls have consistently shown for years that the same two-thirds (or more) of all Americans want all those things. Even if the country has to take on more debt to pay for it.

So next time someone tries to scare you with the Debt Monster, that’s how you smack them down. Ask them which they prefer: debt or death.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...

Yet Another Mole in Need of Whacking

  I n a week when Israel attacked Iran, Trump invaded Los Angeles, four million Americans took to the streets, and a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, the news from the arcane world of digital advertising probably didn’t make it to your list of big concerns. By the time I’m done, it probably still won’t. But in this miasma of Trumpish distractions, it’s often hard to figure out what we’re being distracted from . It’s a constant game of whack-a-mole, and last week, we got the first inkling of yet another mole that will require whacking. Warning: This will take a while to explain, and might cause mild-to-severe boredom. Proceed at your own risk: As we’ve seen, the Trump gang has recently extorted large corporate law firms into defending its pet causes, an ongoing story still developing. Now, apparently, they are trying to do something similar with large advertising agencies. The immediate focus is on the approval, or not, of a major merger between two of...

Uncertainty is Ready for its Closeup

E very day, we learn a little more about the way the Trump junta operates. We might sum it up with the phrase “Shoot first, ask questions later,” but this is not entirely accurate. They do indeed shoot first, mostly with executive orders that are breathtaking in their over-reach, malicious intent, and criminal shortsightedness. But they don’t so much ask questions later, as they send stupid lawyers into court to defend stupefyingly illegal behavior. They tend to fail, but even in failure, the confusion they create works wonders for them. On what must be several dozen fronts since January, MAGA operatives looking to subvert the government have done so, first by launching whatever harebrained scheme they’ve come up with, then by watching for the fallout. The fallout could be in the form of a court ruling, or howls of protest from the victims, or even from Democrats calling them out. But the point is that they depend on that first launch to shake things up, to flo...