WSJ.com - Minding the Gap

I'd like to add my humble analysis.

Heather Boushey has a dangerous viewpoint. She believes that if people are going into debt to "keep up with the Joneses," or buy that nice car or boat or 50-in plasma screen, then the rich should be taxed and the money be provided to these people who are too poor to afford these luxuries. This is more dangerous than allowing these people to go into debt in the first place. If you let them go into debt, then eventually they will go bankrupt and, hopefully, learn their lesson. If, however, you fund their uncontrolled consumerism, the economy gets propped up on an unstable foundation: one that depends on the rich providing money for the middle-class to spend uncontrollably. I hope she knows how stupid this is.

From the little I know, it seems that the most dangerous thing socially and economically that she talks about is this debt. If we don't get rid of it by giving them more money, what do we do to limit the danger to society? This isn't an easy question to answer. I don't think the government can do much, except try to encourage a more frugal way of life. But how can our government encourage something it definitely is not doing? I think we must turn to other social institutions: churches, neighborhoods, clubs. By instilling a social responsibility to not go into debt, then the crisis would resolve itself. But this is a notoriously hard, if not impossible task. Not sees things the way I do and there is no one social institution that reaches everyone.

Well, I guess government does. So this leads to a familiar charge: get the government to spend less. Referring to my earlier question, I have to say, it was kind of dumb. See, we are the government. It's not some strange seperate institution. We elect citizens to offices. Citizens fill the ranks of the bureaurocracy. Every politician, every lobbyist, is a member of this nation, of some local community. Many have children going to schools with other people's children. So, if the government begins encouraging less spending, and we spend less, then the government will be spending less.

The problem is still not easy. Members of government have been trying to cut spending for years with little effect. The problem is that no one is willing to cut what he is spending. The farmers want their subsidies. The retired want their social security. The poor want their welfare. The scientists want their funding. Where do we cut spending? That is not a question I can answer. It is only a question this nation as a whole can answer, since we all have different priorities. Only by writing our congressmen can we let them know.

I think an excellent ides would be for everyone to do two things. First, those who are in debt, stop spending money and get out of debt. Second, everyone think about what they feel we don't need to spend money on and write their congressmen. This way, Congress would have a better idea of what the people are willing to give up and they would have a great deal of support for their arguments.