Guest Editorial
The VISA Party
By Brian Balta

From Hoosier Review -- Nov. 21, 2002

Over the last couple weeks, much has been said about why the Democrats lost the election. People have blamed it on the Democrats moving too far to the right, being unwilling to criticize Mr. Bush, and being unable to articulate a vision of their own for the country. Dick Gephardt even retired as speaker of the House after the defeat. However, one thing has not received as much attention from the Democrats as the problems within their own ranks, and that is why people voted for the Republicans in the first place.

You can come up with some reasons why people might have voted that way. You can say that they truly do want to invade Iraq, or that they do think a Department of Homeland Security will help prevent terrorism, but if you say that, you're missing one major point.

The Republican Party of George W. Bush is, first and foremost, the party without consequences.

No, I'm not saying that everything the Republicans do turns out perfect. Of course I don't believe that; if I did I wouldn't have been shivering out in the rain on Election Day trying to elect Democrats. What I mean is that, under George W. Bush, the Republican Party has virtually never admitted that their may be consequences to anything they do. Every single initiative that they undertake, as they present it, has only a positive side. In fact, everything they suggest shows a blatant disregard for consequences not only in the way it's presented, but also in the way that it was conceived.

Take every single program that they have proposed, and they all follow this pattern. The Department of Homeland Security? When it was originally proposed, it was to be budget neutral, and would increase the ability of the federal government to respond to terrorism. Never once would you hear Mr. Bush admit that their may be additional costs associated with the reorganization, nor would you hear Ari Fleischer say that creating such an organization with such a mission may have sever consequences for the privacy and rights of the people of the United States.

Take the tax cut next. The tax cut was a panacea; it was supposed to stimulate the economy, give more money back to the people, and make America a more prosperous place. During the 2000 campaign however, any time that anyone brought up one of the possible consequences, such as massive budget debts, the hindering of the government's ability to respond financially to a crisis, or the ability of the country to tolerate a recession, Mr. Bush just said that there was enough money so that none of those would happen.

The war with Iraq? The only topic Mr. Bush ever touches on is the necessity of the war. He never says how many casualties we might take, how many Iraqis might be killed, whether or not the Middle East can remain relatively stable after the war, how we'd pay for the war, or even whether or not an invasion might even increase the likelihood of Iraq deploying weapons of mass destruction. Once again, no consequences are even considered.

Next, take a look at the proposed private retirement accounts for Social Security. Sure, some may consider them to be good things, but where will we get the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to pay for the existing commitments? Once again, no answer.

Keep going down the list. The farm bill? Who ever said that it might be too costly and lead to overproduction? Steel tariffs? No consideration of European response. Missile Defense? We are told we need it, but we're given no explanation of how we're going to pay for it or how we can pull out of treaties without enraging people. Increasing defense spending? Once again, where will we get the money? Patriot Act? It may stop some terrorists, but at the cost of the freedoms that make us Americans? Drilling in Alaska? We just assume that the environmental costs will be zero. The Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility? No consideration of the methods of moving radioactive material or the possibility of an earthquake. Leaving only a small contingent of troops in Afghanistan? No consideration of the fact that the country's instability is a bad thing. Smallpox vaccinations? While they could prevent a terrorist strike, the vaccine has a habit of actually giving a lot of people smallpox as a result. Calling for the removal of Yassir Arafat? All that did was make Arafat more popular.

I could keep going.

It's honestly not a huge surprise that the Republican Party would attempt to focus on the positive things that they claim to do for the country. The problem here is that the Republicans aren't just focusing on the positive aspects; they're completely discounting any chance of a negative. In every single proposal they bring, the consideration of any consequences is disturbingly absent.

Obviously, in an election, the lack of a negative side is a good thing. If you can campaign by saying that everything you do is good, then it'll be hard to lose. However, I would argue that there is one major similarity between the Bush Administration's trend here and an important aspect of modern American society.

Modern Americans have a higher credit card debt than at any time before in history. Americans are hooked on credit cards. Much of the economic expansion of the 1990's was fueled by the extension of credit. A huge number of Americans have become addicted to credit, spending more on credit cards than they could pay back over many years.

At the time a person is shopping with a credit card, or taking out a loan, or purchasing something on a finance plan, it's almost like getting something for nothing. You barely have to worry about paying for the object at first. It's kind of like there are no consequences, until it's too late.

Using credit is fine for some people; those who are responsible with it. However, for far too many people, credit can pile up, and leave unintended consequences that hurt people for years.

The Bush administration is the ultimate credit-addict. Coming in January, we can expect even more tax cuts, more defense spending, probably an invasion, some sort of private Social Security accounts, and even more spending on counter-terrorism operations. While some of these may be good ideas, there is simply no method of paying for any of the proposals being considered. It'll just be piled up into the ever-growing national debt.

We're told that, somehow, the budget will just work out in the end, but the only place where we see money coming from is debt. We're piling more and more onto the national credit card, and simply assuming that it'll all take care of itself.

President Bush and his Republican Party campaigned this year on a platform of having a credit card that they'll never have to pay off. They made a lot of proposals for more spending, more tax cuts, and offered nothing that would even make a dent in the cost of what is offered. They were the credit-addict, wanting to buy everything, take in less money, and somehow still pay for it.

The American people are hooked on credit. The Republicans campaigned on the same platform as Visa does when they mail out credit card applications. Purchase stuff now, and you won't have to pay for it later. When a party can offer people everything for nothing, is it surprising that they gained seats in Congress? If I really believed that the Republicans could do everything they wanted without having it cost anything or having any consequences, then they might well have gotten my vote. Obviously, I don't believe that.

When people behave exactly as the Republicans are, they end up filing bankruptcy. A person can only take on so much debt before it devours them. Every dollar that the Republicans spend during the next two years is going to have to be paid back several times over, in interest payments. For every dollar we spend, the yearly interest payment will keep going up, and it'll keep costing us more and more.

Credit addiction is a serious disease, particularly in the government. Our current government is obsessed with instant gratification, and is going to buy whatever it takes to make our leaders happy. They don't care about being able to pay it off, or even whether or not there might be other kinds of costs. Casualties don't matter. Costs don't matter. Risks don't matter.

This cavalier attitude towards anything that might limit the Bush Administration's policies is not only dangerous, it is foolish. It leaves us ill-prepared to face any future problems, and is building so rapidly upon the national debt that the nation's fiscal future will soon be in jeopardy. As Americans, we can only hope that, for the next two years, none of the bills the Administration is leaving unpaid will come due. If they do, then the fine might be more than the country can endure.

Brian Balta, a senior at Indiana University majoring in Geological Sciences, is also active with IU College Democrats and a Union Board Director.

The permanent URL for this article is http://www.hoosierreview.com/balta_files/balta32.html