There is no better way to stick it to the government during this shutdown like World War II vets breaking through fences to honor their fallen comrades.

So why can’t the government agree on a budget? Why can’t we just raise the debt limit and worry about reducing spending when the economy recovers?

Well, as one former senator put it in 2006, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies…” Two years later, this senator would become the President of the United States.

So, if he agrees the debt is a problem and raising the debt ceiling is a “sign of leadership failure,” why is he leading the charge to raise the debt ceiling? What caused this reversal of policy? Historically, once your team gets the power, you don’t want to place limits on that newly acquired power. In Washington D.C., with great power comes great spending ability.

Government expenditures under former President Bush were between 18.2-20.8 percent of total gross domestic product, but once President Obama took office, spending levels increased to 22.8-25.2 percent of total GDP.

Keep in mind former President Bush was fighting two costly simultaneous wars almost his entire presidency. A two percent increase may not sound like a lot, but two percent of our 14 trillion dollar per year GDP is a significant amount of taxpayer dollars.

Legislators and the president need to get serious about this issue. As college students know very well, living with huge debt is very risky and needs immediate attention. Any increase in the current historically low interest rates and the government will have to spend more money paying interest on the national debt and less on things like defense and social programs.

I remain skeptical of any effective long-term deal being produced. Look at all the fuss about the sequester and it only reduced government spending by one to two percent, which isn’t even close to the amount needed to close the gaping hole in our fiscal issues. After it was passed, the media, some legislators and pundits alike called its reductions “draconian cuts” and “dangerous to the economy”.

How can we get serious about these issues when we perceive every paper cut as an amputation? Until we get new leadership in Washington, I doubt any serious reform is possible.

Stephen Sydor
Syracuse University ‘14
Economics, International Relations, and Middle East Studies major

Published on October 15, 2013 at 2:07 am