When history is written about our future economic collapse and the millions of people who will end up in extreme distress, they may look back on the Trump impeachment saga and conclude that the seeds were sown right now.
Instead of governing with an eye toward the future, Trump is on the political ropes. Yes, he continues to achieve great things, and yes, the Democrats are now working with him just to show that impeachment hasn’t totally derailed their agenda in Washington, but the passage of this year’s spending bill to avoid yet another government shutdown is bad news for America in the long run.
We continue to spend money we don’t have, borrowing against future taxpayers which will eventually cause an economic downturn when the stimulus money has to be paid back. Some economists on the Left now suggest we might never pay back our debts, that we should just keep borrowing as needed and not worry about numbers on a balance sheet. After all, even as we borrow like crazy now, inflation remains low…interest rates are at lows…the economy is doing well, stocks are at record highs….everything is good.
Until it isn’t. And then, the downturn will come quickly and “unexpectedly.” Everyone will be surprised that all of a sudden, interest rates are back up to 20% and inflation is over 10% or 20%, and all of a sudden, people around the world no longer will accept worthless dollars for their goods and services. Nor will Americans. If we lose faith in the stability of our currency, we will lose our economic system and the crash will be severe.
But until this disaster happens, let’s just pretend that it never could, and then we can keep borrowing and spending and creating money out of thin air. What could possibly go wrong?
A “change agent” like President Trump could, in theory, tackle this problem. But he has his hands full with running the country, dealing with impeachment, dealing with a hostile media, and all the rest. Reducing the budget deficit and paying off the debt is probably far down on the list. Democrats would rather we waste time on nonsense than deal with real problems and issues, and Republicans can’t unilaterally change the agenda to one of modest spending growth, cost savings, and belt-tightening. There simply isn’t the political appetite for fiscal reform in either party right now.
Allen Nitschelm is publisher of PublicEditorMA.com. He critiques the Boston Globe, mostly focusing on the bias in their news reporting. News articles are graded for bias, and the website has a listing of the average bias ratings for all reporters reviewed. See our website for more information and the four categories of articles published.
NOTE: We have been very active on our Facebook page for Public Editor Press. The page is getting lots of hits and comments, which have been very helpful. I urge readers to go there if you wish to participate or read reactions from others. You will need to “login” to Facebook to post your own comments but you can probably read them without a Facebook account. Here is the direct link to this article’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/390560688135747/posts/740399379818541
To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/
*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed
Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)
Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).
If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.
If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).
Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!