Apparently, understanding debt is optional when you are running for the authority to create more of it. Legal Insurrection reports that Florida Democratic Senate nominee Angie Nixon complained about repaying taxes and student loans, including her statement: “I don’t wanna pay it back. Education supposed to be free.” There you have the promise that keeps politics in business. Declare something free, hand the obligation to government, and pretend the cost has disappeared.
Nixon said it is “crazy” to expect she repay $17,600 in outstanding student loan debt and $14,000 in back taxes. What is “crazy” is seeking a seat in the United States Senate while complaining that somebody expects you to pay what you owe. Once you seek the authority to vote on everyone else’s taxes and the government’s borrowing, you should be prepared to explain how your promises are financed.
Too many politicians treat debt as something they authorize and other people must manage. Borrow today, refinance when it comes due, and leave the next officeholder to deal with the consequences. Governments routinely roll over debt. But the ability to refinance has encouraged a political culture in which there is always money for another promise and never a convenient time to explain the accumulating expense. The politician’s career can end. The obligation keeps collecting interest.
Then comes the lecture to the great unwashed. You must pay more because the government needs revenue. You must accept less because the budget is under pressure. You must tighten your belt because difficult choices can no longer be postponed. Where was this sudden devotion to responsibility when the commitments were being made? They collected the applause for spending the money. Now the people working to earn it are expected to shoulder the responsibility for keeping the arrangement afloat.
No economics examination is required to enter the Senate, although its members help make decisions affecting taxes, borrowing, businesses, and household finances. An examination would hardly guarantee good judgment, but the absence of any requirement to understand finance is striking when you consider the authority involved. A candidate can promise to tax wealth without explaining how it will be valued, promise new spending without identifying dependable revenue, and promise debt relief without discussing the cost. The public gets the sales pitch. The financing is somebody else’s problem.
There is an extraordinary arrogance in borrowing money and then acting offended when repayment comes due, as though your obligation became somebody else’s responsibility. That is the entitlement behind the socialist promise that somebody else should foot the bill. The person who worked extra hours, skipped the expensive degree, or spent years repaying a loan is now expected to accept another charge in the name of fairness. Fairness to whom?
Government can tax and borrow, but neither power guarantees that financing remains cheap or that the tax base remains healthy. Businesses can postpone investment. People can change where they work and where they put their money. Creditors can demand higher yields. When interest expense rises, more revenue is committed to servicing past decisions before anyone addresses present needs. That is how yesterday’s promises begin restricting tomorrow’s choices, regardless of what the next campaign brochure says.
If someone cannot explain how they intend to meet their own financial obligations, why should the public trust their judgment over obligations imposed on millions of others? Treating repayment as an outrageous imposition is idiotic. A balance sheet does not improve because you resent the liabilities. If the entire plan depends on somebody else always having enough money to cover the shortfall, there is no plan. There is merely a bill waiting to arrive.
Nixon believes she personally does not need to meet her debt responsibilities. She will appeal to voters who lack long-term vision and sound, logical minds. Socialists will always find someone else to blame, another wallet to pick through, before accepting responsibility.
The public does not need another speech about compassion from someone unwilling to discuss a balance sheet. It needs an honest account of the obligations being created in its name. Who pays? For how long? What happens if the projected revenue does not arrive? Those questions should come before the spending vote. Politicians can behave as though rolling over a debt means escaping it, but the interest must still be financed. They may be gone by the time the bill becomes unbearable. You will still be there.
