The Church vs. Contraception

This morning, the US Senate voted to kill the so-called Blunt Amendment which would have allowed religious organizations the ability to opt out of certain health care mandate they find morally objectionable, specifically contraception coverage. The decision to kill the amendment was the appropriate one, though the vote of 51-48 to table the bill indicates how much the concept of the separation of church has state has changed in the national mind.

Let’s start at the beginning. After months of consideration, the Obama administration announced the under the new health care law, all employers were required to provide health insurance that included several forms of contraception, even when the employers were religious institutions. Exemptions were provided for employers that were churches (and synagogues, mosques, etc.) or otherwise any institution that was directly involved with religion. This exemption was proper. However, institutions like Catholic hospitals and universities were not exempt. This inclusion was also proper. The Obama administration made the correct initial decision in deference to religious liberties and the rights of individuals.

The backlash was almost immediate. Under the guise of “religious liberties,” the Catholic Church and its conservative allies in Congress launched a series of harsh but unfounded criticism against the Obama administration. While the use of religious liberties would turn out to be a façade, the Church’s argument was flawed from the start. The fundamental problem in the Church’s argument is that not everyone at their universities or hospitals is Catholic, or indeed Christian. It is these people and their liberty to choose what type of health services they desired that the mandate was attempting to protect. It was not the government that was attempting to impede on the rights of a religious organization, but the Church who was attempting to restrict the choices of it employees. It was an attempt by the Church to impose its own particular moral values on others, even if they were not Catholic.

Compounding the problem for the Church was the fact that these institutions more likely than not received money from the government. In such situations it is always the government which decides the terms, not vice versa, and since the US government is secular, it cannot make decisions based on religious doctrine. If the laws dictating the rules of an agreement between government and the Church no longer match Church doctrine, then it is the Church’s obligation to change, not the government’s. If the Church feels that it cannot change, then it should expect that the government will move the funding somewhere else. There is no reason the Church should have special status in this situation. The rights of the general population trump the concerns of a single institution.

The final point that completely undercuts the Church’s initial argument is that the Church is already compelled in many states to provide coverage for contraception. The mandate from the Obama administration was merely taking the idea and applying it nationally. And while there is a disturbing legal trend that seems to be granting employers and institutions equal if not more rights than employees and individuals, there was little reason to suspect that the mandate would be overturned in the courts.

But then the Obama Administration, buying into the false accusation of religious discrimination, revised the rule. Now the Church was no longer required to provide contraception coverage. Now the impetus was put on the insurance companies. This supposed compromise should have put the controversy to rest. But the Church decided to continue the fight and in doing so exposed its true intentions. Their fight had never been about religious liberties it seemed. No, this fight was, and is, about attempting to get the government and the law to conform to the will of the Catholic Church. It is about attempting to impose the doctrine of the Catholic Church on all individuals, regardless of their personal beliefs about contraception. And it is about, intentionally or not, restricting the choices of women.

After all, contraception and birth control is one of the most important factors in the advancement of women’s rights in the modern age. By given women control over when they had children, it allowed many to pursue avenues that previously were not open to them. Those who wished to pursue careers no longer had to worry about an unwanted or inopportune pregnancy. It gave women the right to choose, therefore increasing their liberties.

The vote on the Blunt amendment shows that these liberties are not as secure as we once thought. The Catholic Church and its social conservative allies have perverted the concept of religious liberty by trying to apply it to institutions rather than where it really does apply, individuals. Indeed, despite all the hubris of the Church, it remains a fact that a vast majority of Catholic men and women use some form of birth control. If the Church cannot enforce a ban on contraception among its own congregation, why then should we allow it to speak on these matters with any authority? It seems to me that the Church is attempting to impose the morality of a few on the liberties of the many.

The Problems of the NDAA

On New Year’s Day, President Obama signed into law this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. Among its usual mundane provisions there was a section that may be the first codification of the policy of indefinite detention. In the past 10 years there has been much debate over the proper method by which to detain those suspected of terrorism, particularly those connected to organizations like al Qaeda and the Taliban, but now it seems that the law has been written on the side of those in favor of treating this suspects as prisoners of war and holding them “for the duration.”

But what makes the NDAA stand out is the vague wording and breadth of its coverage, which some say includes the entire globes. There are those (including the ACLU, which I regularly trust in these types of heavily legal matters) that claim that the provisions allow for the detention of US citizens, but as I cannot independent confirm this claim (the provisions I found included a explicit exemption for US citizens) I will not be addressing that issue.

Instead, I want to look at the broader context. On its face, the provisions regarding indefinite detention seem rather mild. Considering that this part of the law is aimed at the organizations the United States is fighting, one should expect such allowances in a warzone. Indeed, I would not want combatants caught in the battlefield to be released freely. What the contention is, however, is the desire for a reason behind the detention.

Given the nature of modern conflict, it is often difficult to tell who your enemy is and who is merely a civilian (this, of course, is ignoring the grey areas that have existed in all historical conflicts). Some have used this reality as a means to avoid the responsibility when detaining individuals, refusing to explain why a certain person is in detention in the name of “national security.” Much less cynically, I have heard from several individual soldiers that often they are forced to release obvious enemy combatants due to strict military methodologies (implying, I assume, support for the contentious measures in the NDAA). The problem with the above arguments is the repeated detentions of individuals who turn out not to any connection to organizations like al Qaeda at all (links). Such occurrences demonstrate a failure in our ability to determine friend from foe. As such, what is required is a more careful examination of our rules of detention, not the wide brush painted by the NDAA provisions. Indeed, in this light the provisions of the NDAA seem haphazard, something one does not want while in combat.

But, to me, the provisions in the NDAA stand out the most when placed beside some of what I consider the most egregious civil rights issues of our day, namely, the Patriot Act, the assassination of a US citizen without trial, the targeting of Muslim communities by the FBI for no other reason than their religion, and the apparent ability of the president to wage war at will (Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.). Therefore, the NDAA is added to an ever growing list of policies and laws that seem to stem from the ever present fear of terrorism rather than a level-headed, realistic vision of the world and the condition of our civil rights and, indeed, the rights of all individuals.

It has been 10 years, but somehow, in some ways, it feels just like yesterday.

A Short Holiday Message

It is that time of year again where everyone wants to seem to argue over the meaning of Christmas and whether or not it is appropriate to say ‘Merry Christmas’ or ‘Happy Holidays’ (my personal choice is Happy Winter Solstice or Happy Solstice Season). It also seems to be the time of year where secular atheists such as me explain their problem with Christmas. But I will not be partaking in such discussions, because, really, I do not have a problem with Christmas. While the attitude of certain Christians and their demand we conform to their particular norms makes me bristle, Christmas itself does not get on my nerves. After all, what is Christmas but another holiday to celebrate and commemorate the turning of another year and gather together with family and friends? Be it Chanukah, Kwanza, Yuletide or Christmas, this is the time when we humans come together in the deepest depths of winter to stay warm, physically and mentally, with traditions that date back generations.

The worse I can say about Christmas is that it is a misnomer, and even that seems disingenuous because Christmas is one part of the grander season. While most people I know consider Christ as the “reason for the season,” Christ’s mass no longer hold any meaning for me in itself. My thoughts, indeed, are not occupied by Christ but instead multiple other thoughts. In a cosmic sense, it is a time to harmonize the lunar and solar years. In an ancestral sense, it is a time to wrap yourself in furs around the hearth and enjoy good mead with family and friends (or, alternatively, a comfortable robe and hot chocolate). And it is this gathering together that holds the most appeal. And in that spirit I shall wish you a Happy Winter Solstice. May your celebrations be grand, your drink plentiful, your food filling, and your company full of cheer, regardless of the reason behind your celebrations.

Criticisms of the Occupy Protests Pt. 2

There are those criticisms that claim not to understand the occupy protests, and they come in several forms. Some point out that the protests have no specific goal, that the protesters are criticizing the wrong groups, that instead of protesting they should take responsibility for their own actions. Some go so far as to say that if they truly represent the 99%, then why haven’t they thrown their electoral weight around that, while seeming fair at face value, actually gets to the heart of what I see is the foundation of not only the Occupy protests, but many of the protest today, including the Tea Party.

One theme that seems to unite all the major protests over the last few years is a general sense of anger and frustration. People feel that they have been left behind or been treated unfairly in the current socio-economic society. Be it anger at the government or anger at Wall Street and large corporations, what we are looking at is a foundational collapse of trust in our societal institutions. One way or another, people feel like they have been cheated and have reached their breaking point, resulting in protests aimed at whatever institutions is deemed most to blame.

For my part, though I have been spending much of my time on this blog critical of the Tea Party and supportive of the Occupy protests, I wish to make it clear that I do not see Government as free from guilt, particularly in helping to bring about the mortgage crisis. My desire to drive a firmer wedge between moneyed lobbying groups and the machinations of government is something I think both libertarians/conservatives and liberals can readily agree. However, when I look at which institutions would be most able to potentially serve the interests of the majority of people, it always turns out to be the government. Government, so far, is the only societal institution with the potential power to defend the general public from vested interests. Government-business collusion can obviously get in the way of this mission.

I also do not withhold criticism from individuals themselves. To the question of whether or not individuals should take responsibility for our role in the financial collapse, all I can answer is ‘perhaps.’ But while the financial crisis is an abject lesson of individual responsibility, it is the lack of criticism aimed at the “experts” in the upper echelons of the banking industry and the like-minded politicians in government. Now, I have no issue with experts who can back up their status as experts, but if we have learned anything from the economic recession it is that the self-proclaimed experts were anything but. The failure of the banking institutions and the government bureaucracy to see the crisis coming, or fail to at least try and prevent it, belies what we had been told for the past few decades. Prior to 2008, one didn’t hear the common individual claiming any expert knowledge about finances, but you did hear that from the “elite” of the financial world. This juxtaposition of is one of the major sources of anger.

But there is another source of frustration that is just as if not more important than what has been discussed: a sense of inequality, or as I like to put it, a sense of unfairness. Many have heard about the “99%” and for the most part it refers to the income gap that has arisen over the past 30 years (as demonstrated by these two charts). Over the past 30 years we had been told that eventually the prosperity of the top would spark prosperity to everyone else. It seems now that the people have gotten tired of waiting. But while some are yelling about class warfare, and about stealing from the rich (often given the misnomer of “redistribution of wealth”), I don’t think much of America is so mean-spirited. While there are certainly those taking part in the Occupy protests who are proponents of the aforementioned ideas, the frustration that the Occupy protests seem to represent stem from a sense of unfairness. In the end, I don’t think most Americans truly despise or hate others because of their success or wealth. At base, I don’t think they want to take from anyone. I’m sure many would prefer to have the opportunity to work toward a higher income rather than tax the rich more. But Americans do have a tremendous sense of fairness, and any anger, frustration, or proposal should be seen in this context. If the disparity was not so high (in the sense of current income and comparative growth in income), if there was a sense that everyone was doing well, not just a selected elite, I’m sure people not mind if, say, the top earners paid less taxes. And while it is true that income has increased for nearly everyone, it is the explosion of wealth at the very top that touches on the people’s sense of unfairness. It appears that the only ones to see significant benefits with current economic system are those at the top, and that is why there are protesters in the streets.

It is the combination of the perception of unfairness and the collapse of trust in our socio-economic institutions that makes me defend the contemporary protests from those that are so quick to be dismissive. If there was trust in the institutions, if they seemed to be working properly, then we could address the unfairness and inequality maturely and confidently. However, without trust, these intuitions cannot work, and therefore we cannot address the problems that face society. The Occupy protests may be ragtag, they may be a bit radical, and they may be amorphous, but the protests, and the frustration and anger which they represent, is very real. If we are dismissive, we do so at our own peril.

Questionable Criticisms of the Occpuy Protests

Over the past few weeks, I have heard criticism of the Occupy protests that seemed ripe for addressing. While some are weak, there are a few that have some merit. However, many of the criticism lead to important points not only about the Occupy protests themselves, but also the general frustration in America that the protests represent.

One of the earlier criticisms made against the Occupy protests was about the TARP, the bank and financial institution bailout fund that rose the ire of many, including those of the Tea Party persuasion. Ignoring for the moment that the protests seem to be more than about TARP (which will be covered below), the argument ran that “TARP has been paid off, therefore people should not be complaining about the excesses of the financial sector.” First, TARP has not been paid off. In fact, much money is still owed to the government, as can be demonstrated by this website. Now, some will point out that two of the top institutions that still owe money are government run entities. That point is true, and is a fair criticism. Let not my defense of the Occupy protests and the general frustrations they represent absolve the government of its role in the mortgage crisis. However, on balance, TARP has not been paid off, with a lot of money still not returned. Additionally, the speed at which some institutions paid back the funds raise serious questions about the necessity of a bailout fund, a fund that many bank CEOs asked for. Finally, as reported by FAIR, the bailouts went beyond just TARP.

Another, rather general criticism of group associated with left of center activists revolve around claims of elite funding, of which George Soros is the usual target. I think the fact of whether or not such funding occurs is beside the point, because the criticism has a more fundamental flaw. Such a criticism undermines the idea of using money as a method of free speech, an argument often used by those of right of center politics to defend the Koch brothers and the idea that corporations have the same benefits of citizens (without any of the responsibilities). Those who level such criticism must also face the fact that, if true, it only demonstrates that political divisions in the US run through classes, not between them, undercutting the charge of “class warfare.”

The protests have also been described as anti-capitalistic. This argument has partial merit as it seems some partaking in the protests are genuinely anti-capitalistic, a position that probably would not resonate with the general populace. Indeed, frustration with an economic system does not necessarily mean outright rejection of that system (a nuance I wish some people would take toward our governmental/political system, but that’s a point for another time). However, why should someone be supportive of a system has seems to have left them behind. To foreshadow something that I’ll point out in part 2, the whole point of the 99% idea is to point out the disparity between those that are well served by the current economic system and those who are not.

In part 2, I will use several criticisms of the Occupy protests to make a larger point about what I think is the source of the protests and the frustration they seem to represent.

The Occupation of Wall Street

By now some of you may have heard of the protests in New York City under the name of “Occupy Wall Street.” After 4 weeks, the protests have demonstrated surprising staying power and are beginning to catch the eye of the major news outlets. The protest in NYC has sparked other protests in major cities in the United States.

For a while I have been wondering if the supposed conservative resurgence, typified by the Tea Party and its loyal freshmen representatives would ever create a left-of-center backlash. The pertinence of this question only increased at the Republicans in Congress began to successfully drag President Obama farther to the right. Disillusionment with the President and the Democrats have been obvious not only on a national scale, but also among my more liberal minded friends, who thought that maybe Obama really would bring about radical change.

The reason I write about the “Occupy” protests is because I sympathize. For a short moment, I thought the Tea Party might have been a potent, somewhat libertarian movement. Its failing, however, came when the movement did not realize that corporate-government collusion is a two way street. In its rage, the Tea Party attacked government itself, leaving the well-funded corporate lobbyists untouched or, worse, defended. By attacking the government itself, it diminished perhaps the only institution by which the common citizen could defend themselves from the vested interests. We must remember that the bank and financial institutions asked for help. The wanted the bailout. And their efforts not only succeeded, but got them off on light terms. Many of us were expecting these institutions to be thoroughly criticized, investigated, and regulations reviewed, reformed, and revamped to strengthen consumer protection. Instead we footed the bill for their mistakes. The anger and frustration over this reality failed to manifest in the Tea Party. Perhaps now it is surfacing in the “Occupy” protests.

However, the amorphous nature of the protests has made me cautious. While the general sense of the protests seems positive in that they are protesting organizations that which could arguably be said to have helped cause the financial collapse, it remains unclear exactly what the protesters hope to achieve. In some sense, the protesters seem okay with that, preferring that the general arena of the debate change, rather than ask for certain policies or actions. Indeed, in some instances I see the same misguided attacks on the government as “the enemy” rather than a tool that has been corrupted.

The general sense of frustration has seemed to have caught on and the protests are growing in numbers. But while continuing for 4 weeks (and spreading to other cities), it will have to wait to be seen if it truly does have the staying power its organizers claim. In a similar vein, the Coffee Party, a grassroots movement whose founder posted a letter of solidarity with the “Occupy” protesters, is preparing an event meant to remind the representatives who they are meant to represent. While I make no predictions, there seems to be a sense of convergence on these issues, at least among those who hold political views left of center.

The Other Shoe Has Fallen

The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 brought the ideology of neoliberalism to the forefront in United States policy. At the center of this ideology was the idea of “setting the economy free,” to release corporations and businesses from the shackles of government. This revolution of sorts was to be achieved through two major steps. First, to lower taxes, particularly on the higher tax brackets with idea being that more money in people’s pockets would stimulate investment and consumerism. Second, the government would cut its expenditures, the idea being that without the need for government regulation the state would no longer need to maintain high budgets with the side effect of reducing risky debt that would frighten financial markets.

That was the idea, anyway. Reagan was quite successful in step one. He failed at step two. Despite being the harbinger of the political neoliberal movement in the United States, he nonetheless increased the size of the US budget. Reaganites can use the Cold War to justify this increase in expenditure, primarily on the military, but this fact does not hide that Reagan was not the neoliberal that many claimed him to be. Reagan, also a politician, also noticed that such moves were popular. People enjoyed the fact that they could pay less in taxes while still retaining many of their government benefits.

Under Clinton, an attempt was made to reduce government expenditures. With the Cold War over and the Republicans in control of Congress, cuts were made and the budget began to have the appearance of being balanced. However, the internet bubble was the main reason behind the increase in revenue, overshadowing the need for a reassessment of tax cuts and spending reductions. Additionally, the cuts Congress made created a minor backlash and the man behind the cuts, Speaker Newt Gingrich, was removed from power by fearful congressmen. Republicans would be hesitant to cut much of anything else afterword.

George W. Bush, much like Reagan, also cut taxes, thinking that with a government surplus he could give the “people’s money’ back to US citizens. But with the attacks on 9/11, an emphasis not only on the military, but also national security gained popular support, and the government demand for money increased. However, thanks to 20 years of government policy, that money was nowhere to be found, so the government, as ever, was forced to borrow. In this case, much like Reagan, Bush was a poor neoliberal.

But then the financial sector of the economy, having grown complacent since the Reagan administration, collapsed under its own weight. Being so essential to the rest of the US economy, the collapse dragged down the rest of the economy. As with any recession, the result was a decrease in tax revenue for the government as people became unemployed and lost their investments. With the decrease in revenue, the consequences of tax cuts without coinciding spending cuts were laid bare. The political crisis was sparked.

Today, the Tea Party is acting to implement the second part of the neoliberal policy: spending cuts. At first, many latched on to the movements ideals, seeing their arguments merely as sensible solutions to the mounting problem of government debt and deficit. But once it became clear the cost of the tax cuts we had supported in the past, the matter became much more complex. Every move by the Tea Party and its like-minded political actors comes with a backlash that attempts to defend the government programs many people enjoy. It is a battle that will redefine the relationship between the government and its people, regardless of the eventual outcome.

A discussion of the results of neoliberal policy in other countries will come at a later date.

The Politics of Hate

The politics of fear have run its course. We are now experiencing the politics of hate.

After the tragedy of September 11th, our politics and our policy were defined by fear. Out of fear of terrorism and external threats, we increased our security at the cost of our liberties. We submitted ourselves to ever more invasive TSA inspections and barely raise concern when new evidence of a violation of the 4th amendment occurs. Out of fear we invaded 2 countries, the second on trumped up charges of an imminent threat that turned out not to be true. And when potential ethical violations occur in the name of the “War on Terror” we turn away uncomfortably and attempt to justify it as “necessary” or “inevitable” when pressed. Everywhere we looked, we saw potential threats.

That fear has now been replaced by hate. As our financial trouble finally came to fruition in 2008, we turned on each other. Suddenly it was the “Liberals” or the “Conservatives” who are to blame for this mess. Unable to take responsibility for ourselves and our own decisions, we blamed other and turned against them in righteous rage. During the election of 2008, the seeds of the hate were sewn and now entangle our political system.

While the Tea Party is not exclusive in terms of hate-filled politics, it serves as an excellent case study in where our political system now stands. Exemplified by the House Republicans of the Tea Caucus, new freshmen representatives rode on a wave of hate to their seats. They demonized incumbent Democrats and Republicans alike as the “other,” the “enemies” who made up the “Establishment.” Having anything to do with these “others” (and their subsequent ideologies and opinions) is like a curse, dooming you to an early political grave. It’s an ideology that denies that any other opinions justifiably exist and see opposition in extreme black and white. It is an ideology that sees the politics of others as borderline treason and sees them as enemies rather than partners in government. It is a movement based on intransigence, a hold-the-line mentality that sees itself as the last great refuge against some sort of cabal of evil forces. These are not the signs of a sensible ideology seeking only to rectify and solve the problems facing a nation. It is the sign of emotional passion.

This passion is infections. We see a president give differing speeches based on his current mood. We see a Senate that has given up its role as the “upper branch” and has resorted to unnecessary and unproductive filibustering. We see otherwise mundane legislative procedures become the “next big crisis.” People demand compromise, demand that the various sides work together and yet how can one expect compromise from an ideology that explicitly wants nothing to do with compromise?

And compromise is essential for the US Government to operate. For a system based on checks and balances, divided branches of government that can often be held by opposed political parties, nothing works without compromise. It is the oil in the system. As much as many of us (including me) criticize smoky back-room deals, at least legislation was drafted and the wheels of the nation kept turning.

Perhaps when we finish our collective hissy fit we can all take a deep breath and get back to work, but until then the politics of hate rule.

In Defending Americans

Often during the discussion about the ability and right of Muslims to build mosques in the United States, one criticism I have often come across is one that asks why “liberals,” if they are supposed to be defenders of individual rights, would defend a faith that has an evidently poor record when it comes to human rights and decency. Ignoring the hypocrisy present when this argument is presented by Christians, and leaving aside for another time the complex factors that determine the relationship between society and religion, this criticism can only be explained, at least in my case, as a misinterpretation of what I am actually defending.

In defending Muslims’ rights to practice their religion, to build mosques where they please, and to associate with the people they desire, I am not, as some mistakenly suggest, defending the faith that does, in fact, have an appalling record when it comes to civil rights and human dignity. In fact, I am not defending their religion at all. Instead, I am defending citizen’s rights to freedom of religion and freedom of association. Far from being hypocritical, I am being consistent.

Just as much as I would defend the rights of religions minorities, so too would I defend the right to fairly criticize those religions. Defense of an individual’s right to practice their religion is not simultaneously an acceptance of that religions particular moral code or indeed any religious moral code. I defend the ability of individuals and groups to build religious buildings in the same way I defend the rights of individuals to portray the Prophet Mohammad satirically (or, indeed, portray him at all).

One can see then, that I am no supporter of “Islamic law.” Its outdated and archaic modes of justice have no place in the US. However, we must remember that the same rights that allow Muslims to freely practice their faith are the same that would ensure that “Islamic law” would not be implemented. The answer to this perceived threat is to not discriminate against Muslims who themselves may not even support such an implementation, but to continue to stand by the rights that ensure the machinations of government and religion remain as separate as possible. This instance is a prime example of why a primer in the Bill of Rights is essential reading.

Because, in the end, in order for human rights to work, they must be applied equally to all. One would think, given the US’s history of trial and error, first ending slavery, then granting women suffrage, then ending the legal distinction between “black” and “white,” that we would understand that denying rights to some but not others is a recipe for disaster.

Taxes and Democracy

The ongoing debate over taxes and spending is probably one of the most cynically humorous running gags of the US government. Both parties constantly play lip service to comprehensive reform that could help solve both revenue and spending streams. However, down to the wire, both respective parties only have one particular part of the issue in mind. Take for example the tax deal President Obama achieved with Congressional Republicans as 2010 came to a close. For an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts (a republican pocket issue), Mr. Obama was able to secure an extension of unemployment benefits (a democrat pocket issue). Politically, the deal made perfect sense. In terms of the budget, the deal made no sense.

Usually, the blame would lie on the respective political parties. “They just don’t get it” is the usual reply, more or less, from both sides (ignoring, for the moment, what ‘it’ really means, if anything). This criticism is fair, but usually not for the reasons some people think. The criticism is fair because the political parties fail to lead on this issue. While the details can be complex, it is generally agreed that what is needed to reduce the deficit and debt is a combination of both tax hikes and spending cuts. As mentioned, both parties agree on this premise, but in practice neither is will to make the political sacrifice necessary to enact such legislation.

This criticism is not fair because the political parties are ignoring the wants of their constituents; just the opposite. When people say “they don’t get it,” they usually do not mean the ability to lead. What they usually mean is that they didn’t get exactly what they want. For a democrat, it usually is a critique of the republicans’ desire for tax cuts. For a republican, is usually is a critique of the democrats’ desire for government programs or tax hikes. The irony of this situation is that both parties are doing exactly what their constituents want. And this situation transcends party lines. In general, we Americans get exactly what we want from both parties: more government programs or money that we don’t have to pay for.

This trend is a result of our democratic political process. Parties are there to represent the will of the American people and in this instance they are doing exactly that. It is easy to blame the other side for the current federal debt, but it is only through the will of the American voters that this situation has come into existence. There is enough overlap between the respective political parties to make increased government spending alongside continually low taxes generally popular among the people. The parties are merely representing that will in the legislation they enact.

So, can this conundrum be fixed? Outlooks are not positive. Fixing this situation would require either political sacrifice from one or both of the major political parties, or a realization by the American people that this situation is unsustainable. The former is unlikely, particularly given the current nature of federal political government. The latter only occurs, historically, after a major national crisis much greater than the 2007-09 recession.

Happy New Year!