Progressives get it wrong on national debt

I consider myself a progressive – proudly.  And my sympathies are certainly aligned with those bright lights of the movement. But here is an example of “progressive” thought that is just plain wrong. And it’s wrong not because of the sentiment – which in the past was indeed the correct response – but in terms of understanding of the new reality we are in.

The article below argues that government borrowing is needed to stimulate the economy.  That it is the investment that government spending makes that will produce the conditions that will return us to prosperity.

But the writer shows a total lack of understanding of our true situation.  Growth will not return in the ways that will enable us to pay back the debt we’ve now incurred, let alone enable us to pay back any additional debt.   The end of growth is due to the need to mitigate climate change as well as the global resoruce limits we’ve now reached.  For a “progressive” to argue that government needs to borrow more in order that we may grow proves that this one at least is completely hung up in the past.  We cannot get to a stable, just society through debt.  We never did, and we shouldn’t keep throwing good after bad in continually trying.

We need progressives to help us find our way through the new era we are entering.  One of lower energy and other resource use, one of less government spending, and one of more local self-reliance.  The poppycock below does none of that.


Friends and colleagues,

I have an op-ed in today’s edition of USA Today arguing that the federal debt is a good thing — and, in fact, we should take on more debt at this moment in history.  My argument is based on the fact that many successful corporations carry much higher debt-to-income levels so they can invest in future opportunity.

USA Today op-ed: “Don’t Believe the National Debt Hype”

As you can imagine, since even many liberals aren’t defending public spending and borrowing, this argument is creating quite a stir.  It could be a game changer — to prevent further draconian cuts in federal spending.  Will you help get it read by as many people as possible?

I’ve pasted the text of the piece below.  Please share it with your networks and help defend the role of government!



By Sally Kohn

The way politicians from both parties are shouting from the rooftops about the dangers of the federal debt, you’d think such high rates of borrowing are always cause for alarm. But some of our nation’s largest and most successful businesses not only run even higher levels of debt — they actually consider carrying significant debt to be good business practice. In fact, the private sector teaches us why increasing government debt right now is a good idea.

The United States generates approximately $14.5 trillion in GDP each year and carries, currently, $14.3 trillion in debt. That represents a debt-to-income ratio of roughly 1-to-1.

By comparison, here are the debt-to-income ratios of some of the leading corporations in America:

•IBM— 2-1

•Dupont — 3-1

•United Technologies — 3-1

•Boeing — 4-1

•Caterpillar — 14-1

•JP Morgan Chase — 50-1

In other words, IBM borrows twice as much money as it earns annually. Boeing borrows four times more than it earns. And JP Morgan Chase, clearly not too big to borrow, borrows 50 times more than it earns — getting $50 from lenders for every $1 it makes.

Sure, if the U.S. were borrowing anywhere near as much as Chase bank, we’d have legitimate reason to worry. But in general, borrowing money is necessary to invest in the future — whether the future of a business or the future of a nation.

Investing in the future

After all, what makes a company like IBM successful isn’t just that it makes money each quarter and has high stock values in the short term. IBM is successful in the long term as well because it invests in future business opportunities — borrowing money to develop new areas of practice that ultimately grow the company, earn more profit and pay those loans back.

Similarly, especially now that government revenues are historically low because of tax cuts as well as a sluggish economy, the United States must borrow money to invest in future opportunity for the nation as a whole.

Consider the aftermath of the Great Depression, when the U.S. invested in the federal highway system that not only created jobs in the short term but also literally paved the way for all kinds of business growth and entrepreneurship across America.

Similarly, public investments in education created a generation of small-business owners, Silicon Valley innovators and, yes, Navy SEALs. Industries such as aerospace, computing and biotech would not exist today were it not for our substantial government investments in the past.

Today, our government needs to borrow money to send the next generation of scientists to college, to invest in green technologies that will solve our energy problems in the coming years, and to ready our nation’s infrastructure for the next great American invention that will captivate the global market.

Look to Singapore as model

Borrowing today to fund the innovation of tomorrow stimulates our economy and generates revenue growth that pays back the debt. That’s why emerging economies such as Singapore — which is still riding high despite the worldwide economic downturn — carry a debt-to-income ratio that looks more like IBM’s, borrowing money to keep its economy innovating and growing.

Yes, too much debt can indeed be dangerous, especially debt that is not directed at growing future opportunity and ultimately paying down that debt. But in the midst of a stagnant economy, with the private sector sitting on record amounts of unspent capital and failing to create jobs, government is the spender of last resort — the only way to jump-start the economic engine of our future.

Often, those who oppose federal government spending compare the federal budget to the family budget. Even President Obama has said, “Families are tightening their belts. Their government should, too.” Indeed, when families run up credit card debt, though often understandable or even unavoidable, that kind of debt is seen as irresponsible. Think of buying a home. Yet most families grow through strategic debt, including assuming decades-long mortgages. Is such a move irresponsible, or simply a strategic investment in a family’s future?

Critics of government often say public institutions should be run more like efficient, profit-driven businesses. In that case, it’s time to end the ideological attacks on our federal debt and let our government borrow the same way America’s best businesses do. The dividends will come back to all Americans — not just in dollars but also in better schools, better health care and retirement, new roads, safer streets and greater prosperity for all.

In the meantime, the only interest we should worry about is our national interest.

Sally Kohn is a community organizer and political commentator. She is the founder and chief education officer of the Movement Vision Lab.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s