A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

WHO’S THE CULPRIT?

This topic is going to come up:  the national debt.  It seems that every election cycle and campaign dedicate at least some interest to the question (or the problem) of the national debt.  Big numbers are involved and, as such, can easily be manipulated and the average citizen can be left mystified as to the seriousness and effect the debt can have on their individual lives.  The party that cries the most about the debt is the Republican one as it tries to paint the Democrats as irresponsible spendthrifts.  In the eyes of most voters, this view is enhanced with the image of the Dems as being the party that favors welfare, bureaucracy, and foreign aid.  These citizens, listening to this campaign rhetoric, seem to have little understanding of what the government spends and many see such budget items as foreign aid gobbling up much more money – in absolute as well as percentage terms – than is actually the case.  And yet when one actually does see the numbers, those pertaining to who is responsible for the increases in the national debt, one gets a very different picture.

In this posting, I want to review the record of the last five administrations.  But before I share these numbers, let me point out one important fact.  The increase in the debt is not just a product of the government spending more or even of tax rates going up or down.  Yes, of course, these are definite factors.  But another important factor has to do with how well the economy is doing.  Why?  Because, if the economy takes a nose dive as it did in 2008, businesses make less profit and workers lose their jobs.  As a consequence of less profit and wages, tax revenues plummet and the government takes in less money – a lot less money.  But it is precisely at those times that governmental support services and other welfare demands increase.  Of course, this means more money going out of government and less coming in.  Consequently, deficits increase and the overall debt goes up.  Again, tax rate policy, such as the Bush tax cuts, and government spending such as the military buildup under Reagan, take their tolls as the numbers below demonstrate.  But one should not forget other sources of debt when one considers what the appropriate levels of spending and taxing should be.

Here are the numbers for the last five presidents:
Ronald Reagan (R) – January, 1981 to January, 1989 – inherited a total federal debt of $848 billion and left office with a total federal debt of $2,698 billion, an increase of 218%.
George H. W. Bush (R) – January, 1989 to January, 1993 – inherited a total federal debt of $2,698 billion and left office with a total federal debt of $4,188 billion, an increase of 55%.
Bill Clinton (D) – January, 1993 to January, 2001 – inherited a total federal debt of $4,188 billion and left office with a total federal debt of $5,728 billion, an increase of 37%.
George W. Bush – January, 2001 to January, 2009 – inherited a total federal debt of $5,728 billion and left office with a total federal debt of $10,627 billion, an increase of 86%.
Barack Obama – January, 2009 to a scheduled departure in January, 2017 – inherited a total federal debt of $10,627 billion and is currently presiding over a debt of just over $16,000 billion, an estimated increase of 60%.[1]

What can a civics teacher do with these numbers?  Well, one thing a teacher can do is test the popular hypothesis of which party is more responsible for the debt.  This would need more information.  For example, which party controlled Congress during the different administrations?  It’s Congress that sets up the final budget and votes it into law.  Another question I think is very important is how able we Americans are to handle increased debt.  So, for example, what was the GDP (gross domestic product, the total dollar value of goods and services produced in a given year) in a particular year as opposed to another year?  I use this figure because it is used most often to measure the health of the economy.  For example, in 1980, the year before Reagan took office, the GDP was $5,934 billion or about five times the amount of the debt.  Today, the debt is just over the GDP number or about one to two trillion dollars over the GDP.  Many find this ratio alarming.  But we have seen these rates before.  After World War II, we had a debt level quite a bit higher than the GDP level.  These kinds of comparisons are useful.  Another investigation that students can do – more of a math problem – is to see during which administration the debt, on average, increased on a monthly basis or the increase between the times that the two parties held the White House.  This latter concern can be answered in terms of a percentage basis or actual money amount basis or both.  So, in the figures above, the Republicans controlled the White House for 240 months.  Using the easier numbers for illustration purposes, during the Republican years, the total percentage increase was just under 1.5% per month, while for the Democrats, it was an increase of .5% per month over the 192 months they held the presidency (which will be the number of months – Clinton plus Obama – when Obama leaves office).  Perhaps these numbers are easier to understand.

I have previously in this blog written about comparing debt to wealth.  My message in that posting was that we can afford our debt as it is currently constituted.  Having stated that, I do want to make it clear that the debt can be a problem, especially when the servicing of debt – how much we pay in interest payments – becomes too large a number in our yearly budget.  So, all other things being equal, we should find a way to lower the debt and that means lowering our deficit rate – the amount by which the debt increases every year.  Here is where a citizen’s values come into play.  We can lower the deficit by the government spending less or we can raise revenues – a nice way of saying raise taxes.  There are portions of our citizenry that are not paying enough and some that are paying too much.  That’s my opinion reflecting my values.  You might have another view, but whatever, the question should be asked and answered:  how do we make sure we can continue to afford our debt?



[1] Mikkelson, D.  (2012)  Who increased the debt?  Snopes, retrieved from http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp .

No comments:

Post a Comment