'To debt, or not to debt'

We live in a society of debt. A quick glance at our surroundings inevitably reveals people and institutions that operate with the aid of money that is not theirs. Our peers live on the stream of imaginary money that their credit cards supply. Businesses operate in buildings that they couldn’t ever afford. Even our nation operates on the ability to refrain from paying up from real coffers, preferring instead to get it from other places.

Though this system of borrowing may be necessary, the universalized ability to “get money now!” is taking its toll. The average undergraduate in this country lives under the pressure of $2,200 of credit card debt. That number hanging over one’s head starts to spell doom quickly. How can a college student start to manage such a pit of debt without an income? It seems that this large sum, when combined with student loans and the daunting prospect of life’s expenses, can easily lead to financial ruin—especially in this economy.

Consider this, though: the country is laboring under $11 trillion of debt, all of it borrowed from others. Others who will probably want that money back someday. Others who have all the more influence over us with each billion that is added to that sobering sum.

One would think that $11 trillion of outstanding debt would be a number so sobering that the government would start curbing its increase, if not its size. One might hope against hope that the talking heads on Capitol Hill would start making some tough decisions before we find ourselves in a tougher situation.

Back in hope-shattering reality, our tax-funded employees are actually acting in ways that boggle the mind more than an Orgo problem set. Far from curbing spending, politicians in Washington have begun to discuss the government’s largest areas of expenditure with one goal in mind—expansion.

Unsurprisingly, such discussion has ignited debate across the country. As soccer moms and small business owners voice their admittedly untempered criticisms in town hall meetings, the voices across the aisle speak of governmental responsibilities and social contracts.

The proponents of increased governmental involvement in healthcare talk of our government’s duty—the obligations it has towards its people. In relation to health care, they point out a concept known to all students at CC: the social contract. “Participation in our American society includes a guarantee of health care!” they insist. “Does our Constitution not charge the government with the ‘general Welfare’ of the people?” they query.

With the virtues of government-sanctioned health care on their minds, they propose thousand-page bills guaranteeing it to the people. Dreaming of the glory that will bloom with the passing of those unread pages, they neglect to look at the prospects of our country’s future.

These bills, which contain budgets in the billions and consequences in the trillions, stand to send the country barreling towards bankruptcy. Skeptical? The overhaul proposed by Congress earlier in the summer will ring up a cool trillion dollars in the first 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This proposed spending spree, when combined with the already existing (and already expensive) government programs involving health care, will likely lead to uncontrollable debt.

I am not arguing for a halt to the health care discussion in DC—I think major reforms are needed and can be achieved without substantial spending. Instead, it is time to take a step back. We must recognize that using 13 percent of our tax revenue simply to pay interest on our debt is an irrefutable warning against increasing our borrowing.

There may well be a social contract demanding that the government provide health care to the people. Perhaps even the preamble to our Constitution dictates such action. However, one must question the assumedly absolute nature of such assertions. In short, does a social contract, regardless of its obviousness or weight, overrule the very survival of the system in which it is valid? Do we as the people have to fulfill such a contract if it requires that we put our nation in danger of bankruptcy in the future?

Like a penniless college student opening that enthusiastic letter from a local bank and eyeing the included credit card, the people of the United States have opened up the discussion on health care, finding an attractive solution that has presented itself. Do we grab hold of it, turn our eyes from the potentially catastrophic consequences, and use it in the name of social contracts and government guarantees? Or shall we recognize this irresponsible flirtation with nationwide doom for what it is and make the tough decisions required for its salvation? It is this choice that is upon us. May we choose wisely.

Derek Turner is a Columbia College sophomore. Opening Remarks runs alternate Tuesdays. opinion@columbiaspectator.com