Tl;dr: I was listening to the Senate debate about passing the Omnibus resolution and got angry because Congress has proven that it cannot police itself when it comes to spending. This lack of fiscal responsibility may lead to an economic crisis in the future without sufficient wealth to issue enormous amounts of debt and print money.

For some reason that I don’t fully understand, I was listening to the local NPR station in the car last night.

They were replaying the “highlights,” if you can call them that, of the debate on the Senate floor about passing the Omnibus resolution that would enable the government to continue functioning.

The Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, had an objection saying that the bill allowed for Congress to ignore its own rules about spending constraints (because the bill waived the rules). Basically, he was saying, “what’s the point of having rules that prevent us from spending money if we can just say ‘ah, we’re going to ignore the rule this time?”

The counter-argument was from Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders, whose argument was “well, if we don’t pass the bill, it will shut down the government and prevent services from being delivered, right before Christmas.”

Cleverly, he added, “and that’s not a nice Christmas gift for the American people.”

The whole debate made me a bit angry.

I certainly don’t think shutting down the government and preventing people who need help from getting it is ideal. That’s a good short-term decision.

But, I agree with Rand Paul. I mean, Congress has proven again and again that they can’t police themselves and work in the long-term interests of the country, preferring instead to focus on short-term things that lead to political advantage and re-election.

I suppose there’s nothing new about that, but what is new is the cost of these decisions.

Every time Congress passes additional deficit spending, we enter new, uncharted territory and my concern is that they think “well, we’ve never really had a massive crisis before so it won’t happen and if it does, it certainly won’t happen on my watch.”

Interestingly enough, earlier that day, I read an Op-Ed in the WSJ called “ We Aren’t Ready for a Financial Crisis “With $31 trillion in debt and a Fed balance sheet of $8.6 trillion, budgetary restraint is essential.”

It’s a well-reasoned article that makes the point that has been made before.

As the national debt increases, demand for U.S. Treasury debt must at some point diminish and interest rates rise, resulting in a crushing interest-rate burden on the U.S. economy and increased inflation. The Federal Reserve also can’t infinitely expand its balance sheet and the supply of money without causing hyperinflation. All of this suggests that the U.S. may one day face a financial crisis without sufficient wealth to issue enormous amounts of debt and print money. The result would be economic depression or hyperinflation.

I just wonder if we’re so immune to these types of arguments because most people think it’s a “boy who cried wolf’ type thing. It’s never happened before, right?

2nd Grade Summary:

Congress was debating whether or not to pass a bill that would keep the government running and help people who need it. Some senators think it's a bad idea because the government should not be able to ignore its own rules about spending. Other senators think it's a good idea because it will help people who need it, especially during the Christmas season. People are worried that if the government keeps spending money, it could cause a financial crisis.

Tl;dr: I was listening to the Senate debate about passing the Omnibus resolution and got angry because Congress has proven that it cannot police itself when it comes to spending. This lack of fiscal responsibility may lead to an economic crisis in the future without sufficient wealth to issue enormous amounts of debt and print money.

For some reason that I don’t fully understand, I was listening to the local NPR station in the car last night.

They were replaying the “highlights,” if you can call them that, of the debate on the Senate floor about passing the Omnibus resolution that would enable the government to continue functioning.

The Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, had an objection saying that the bill allowed for Congress to ignore its own rules about spending constraints (because the bill waived the rules). Basically, he was saying, “what’s the point of having rules that prevent us from spending money if we can just say ‘ah, we’re going to ignore the rule this time?”

The counter-argument was from Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders, whose argument was “well, if we don’t pass the bill, it will shut down the government and prevent services from being delivered, right before Christmas.”

Cleverly, he added, “and that’s not a nice Christmas gift for the American people.”

The whole debate made me a bit angry.

I certainly don’t think shutting down the government and preventing people who need help from getting it is ideal. That’s a good short-term decision.

But, I agree with Rand Paul. I mean, Congress has proven again and again that they can’t police themselves and work in the long-term interests of the country, preferring instead to focus on short-term things that lead to political advantage and re-election.

I suppose there’s nothing new about that, but what is new is the cost of these decisions.

Every time Congress passes additional deficit spending, we enter new, uncharted territory and my concern is that they think “well, we’ve never really had a massive crisis before so it won’t happen and if it does, it certainly won’t happen on my watch.”

Interestingly enough, earlier that day, I read an Op-Ed in the WSJ called “ We Aren’t Ready for a Financial Crisis “With $31 trillion in debt and a Fed balance sheet of $8.6 trillion, budgetary restraint is essential.”

It’s a well-reasoned article that makes the point that has been made before.

As the national debt increases, demand for U.S. Treasury debt must at some point diminish and interest rates rise, resulting in a crushing interest-rate burden on the U.S. economy and increased inflation. The Federal Reserve also can’t infinitely expand its balance sheet and the supply of money without causing hyperinflation. All of this suggests that the U.S. may one day face a financial crisis without sufficient wealth to issue enormous amounts of debt and print money. The result would be economic depression or hyperinflation.

I just wonder if we’re so immune to these types of arguments because most people think it’s a “boy who cried wolf’ type thing. It’s never happened before, right?

2nd Grade Summary:

Congress was debating whether or not to pass a bill that would keep the government running and help people who need it. Some senators think it's a bad idea because the government should not be able to ignore its own rules about spending. Other senators think it's a good idea because it will help people who need it, especially during the Christmas season. People are worried that if the government keeps spending money, it could cause a financial crisis.