National Debt: What the Founder's said about it

Our national debt would horrify the Founders

[...] There is no doubt that George Washington, our first president, Alexander Hamilton, our first secretary of the treasury, and Thomas Jefferson, drafter of the Declaration of Independence and our third president, would be horrified by the present financial condition of the federal government. Public debt was anathema for Washington, who in his Farewell Address admonished us to "cherish public credit," noting that "one method of preserving it, is to use it sparingly ... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt." Washington warned that one generation could spend itself into great debt, then "not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen. ..."

Hamilton's greatest service to the nation was his management of the federal government's assumption of states' debt accumulated during the Revolutionary War and under the Articles of Confederation. He knew firsthand the devastating effects of growing public debt on every sector of a society. As historian David Barton notes, Hamilton's most succinct advice to his countrymen was that they always remember "to avoid as much as possible the incurring of any new debt."

Jefferson was Hamilton's great nemesis in the political world, but the two adversaries agreed on the evils of public debt. As evidence of their agreement on this issue, Barton points to Jefferson's statement in an 1816 letter to John Taylor of Caroline: "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." [...]

How far we have come from our roots. And in our over-reaching upward, how far we have to fall.
     

Thousands attend Tea Party Protest in DC

Battling Pelosicare; Update: Thousands descend on D.C., “You work for us!”



Also see:

Is Tea Party conservatism a help or a hazard for Republicans?

     

Washington really is broken. See how it "runs"

The American people supposedly voted for change in Washington, but in so many ways it continues to be business as usual. A broken system that continues to be broken:

Short-Circuiting Bipartisanship Is Nothing New for Congress

[...] it was hardly novel this week when Republicans protested vigorously that their legislative rights had been violated as the Democratic-led Congress pushed through the $787 billion economic stimulus bill with just three Republican votes in the Senate. Only the party labels had changed.

In truth, regular order — as following the Congressional rule book is known on Capitol Hill — has not been occurring very regularly in the House and Senate for years. And both parties are to blame.

Intense partisanship, a reluctance to work across the aisle, procedural game-playing and thin margins in the House and Senate have led both parties to short-circuit the legislative process, skipping over committees, blocking the right to propose amendments and generally strong-arming legislation through by relying on their own majorities.

“Bad process leads to bad policy,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, who has been on both sides of the closed negotiating room door over the years.

It has gotten so bad that Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is the majority leader, noted that almost half of the 58 Democratic senators have never participated in an official House-Senate conference committee, a form of negotiation that was once a staple of Congressional legislative life.

Some Democrats say such irregular times for the nation do not allow for regular order. But they did convene a conference committee on the stimulus bill, though it was not much of one. Negotiators met after Senate Democrats and three Republicans had already cut a deal on the plan. Democrats, who had a firm parliamentary grip on the negotiations, were not about to let the carefully calibrated agreement fall apart. [...]

Bold emphasis mine. This NYT's article goes on with their usual spin for the Democrats, claiming that the Democrats now want to get back to old procedures, especially since there have been complaints about it within their own party. But where is their actual incentive to do so? As a majority party, they can just keep pushing through whatever they want.

I would like to think that if Republican's gain more seats in the House and Senate, that things would improve, that there would be more balance and therefore, more bi-partisan cooperation. But I'm not so sure. If established procedures and order in conducting government business are not respected and followed, they can't be expected to "work" under any circumstances.

It's worth reading the whole article. It just shows how our lawmakers in D.C. have been ignoring established protocals and rules for a long time now. Is it any wonder that Washington doesn't "work" anymore? How can it, when our lawmakers just do what they want to do?

And this isn't just a problem in Washington. I've seen it in the state governments of California and Oregon. State politicians take an Oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the state, then when they get into office, they DON'T. They just do what they want. The result; massive debt and chaos, making our system of government unworkable.

When laws, rules and procedures are ignored by those who are supposed to follow and uphold them, they cease to have any meaning. Lawmakers can keep passing new laws to make themselves look busy, but without respect for the law and the procedures established for the creation of the laws that are supposed to govern us, what good can come of it?

Our system of government is literally breaking down. It served us well for over 200 years, but it can't continue to function when it is simply ignored and disregarded at will. There are people who want to replace it with something else, and I can't say I like what I see coming.

We can't turn back the clock, but we may have to fight to keep what is best from our past, to hold it and bring it forward into our future. That's why I insist it's important to respect our current form of government; it's a case of use it or lose it. Our politicians seem to use it less and less. How long before we lose it?


Related Links:

Our Tax Cheat Treasurer has No Plan

Is Obama compounding Bush's mistakes?

What would a U.S. currency collapse look like?
     

PETA gives away fur coats for the Inauguration

Obama's green inaugural footprint

For the inauguration of a president who promised to be a friend of the environment, what would you expect but carbon-neutral inaugural balls, hybrid Lexuses, organic menus and valet bicycle parking?

Political correctness will rule the day.

Two Green Inaugural Balls are planned, including one featuring a green carpet made from--what else?--a recycled rug. Official invitations to the Jan. 20 inauguration are being printed on recycled paper. The homeless will be handed furs.

With millions of visitors headed to Washington for President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in, "Our goal is to create an unforgettable evening while treading lightly on the Earth," said Jenna Mack, an organizer of one Green Inaugural Ball--not to be confused with another Green Inaugural Ball featuring Al Gore.

Beyond the Earth-minded, nearly every imaginable group is planning an event to promote a cause.

PETA plans to give away fur coats to the homeless while offering hot soy milk cocoa in cups that read: "Thank You for Not Wearing Fur!"

"We expect that the only fur on the streets on Jan. 20 will be on homeless people," said Bruce Friedrich, PETA vice president.

The furs, collected from people who don't want them anymore, will be marked with black paint before they are given away so that they cannot be sold. [...]

I once worked for a lady attorney, I'll call her "Diane". She had a client who was short of cash, and paid her bill with an elegant fur coat, I think it was Lynx. Diane, who often complained about the cold damp in San Francisco, loved her new fur. She was wearing it to a posh social event one evening, when suddenly she was splashed with red paint by a female PETA protester.

Diane was never one to be a victim. She had the woman arrested, and then sued the bitch for the cost of having the fur "restored". Apparently, furs can be restored when they get paint on them. I wonder if any of the Inaugural homeless furs will find their way back into mainstream circulation? Even if they don't, are we going to see Washington homeless people dressed in elegant, paint-stained furs for years to come?

Maybe it's part of the Change We Can Believe In.