In
the second presidential debate last night, there was plenty of intellectual
dishonesty coming from both sides. But the most striking instance of this was
President Obama’s promise to reduce deficits and create jobs “using the savings
from ending wars.”
Wars
cost money. A lot of money. In the past, America has had to go to war to defend
itself against actual threats, and the money for those wars just had to be
spent. For example, if our founding fathers had not fought the Revolutionary
War because they did not want to spend the money, then we would not be
independent from Great Britain right now. But the conflicts we are engaged in
now, toppling dictators in the Middle East, some of whom only came to power
because of our influence, are just simply not worth the money.
Deciding
not to go to war is not the same thing as saving money. By President Obama’s
logic, the fact that we did not invade France this year means that we saved a
few billion dollars, or whatever such a war would have cost us. Not spending
money on wars and other programs that we do not need is not saving money—it
just means we are not spending more.
President
Obama and Governor Romney need to get serious about what saving money really
means. Saving means cutting unnecessary spending, not just refusing to pile on
more spending. Serious saving requires being honest about the fact that our
entitlement programs are unsustainable. You would not know it from the rhetoric,
but we simply cannot keep benefits the same for all current retirees and people
close to retirement. We have to make cuts now, not just promise cuts for future
generations.
No comments:
Post a Comment