Originally published 7/28/11, 5:06 pm.
People may say that, being a Canadian, it is not really any of my business. There are two problems with that assertion. One is that this American crisis does effect me. Like it or not, we now do have a global economy and what happens in any one nation affects the others.
However, there is another, and perhaps more important, problem with that assertion. Ethical behaviour -- or non-ethical behaviour -- anywhere in the world is mine and every one's direct concern. There is an ethical issue that, it would seem, is being ignored in this whole matter...and this bothers me greatly.
The real issue before the American Government is simply how are we going to meet our monetary obligations including the servicing of the country's debt. The question is not how America got into such debt or, even, whether such debt was justifiable.
The reality is that the country has these debts and obligations -- and when any new person becomes elected to office, this person has to accept the reality of the situation in which he/she finds the country. It doesn't matter whether you like this debt or feel it is justified. It exists and the moral obligation of an entity -- whether individual or country -- is to meet this obligation.
If you want to change the rules in the future -- fine. But what exists already, exists. The obligations and debts exist -- they must be serviced.
It is, thus, just simply morally wrong for there to be any issue regarding raising the debt ceiling. It simply has to be done because it is the moral obligation of the country to service its debt and meet its obligations.
If one wants to change the future responsibilities of the country -- fine. That is a different issue. But to use the need to meet past obligations as a sword in deliberations over future responsibilities -- that is just wrong.
This is a moral wrong. It should be presented as a moral standard that the country will of course meet its obligations (unless it really cannot). This is clearly the halachic standard -- one is obligated -- to the best of their ability -- to pay their debts.
For there to be even a contemplation that the U.S. may not meet its commitments is simply giving the wrong moral lesson -- and it bothers me to no end that it would seem to be people professing religious beliefs that do not perceive the incorrect moral lesson that is being presented by using the obligation to meet past commitments as a bargaining chip for the establishment of future commitments. That may be a practical, political ploy but it teaches a terrible moral lesson
There should simply be no issue: America needs money to meet its commitments. It doesn't matter whether you like these commitments or not, they are true, legal commitments and the country is clearly morally bound by them. Its a moral no brainer -- the debt ceiling has to raised. Morality should not be a political bargaining chip.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
2 comments:
I partially disagree. One has an obligation to pay off debt IFF one can figure out how to do so without incurring a larger debt that you also don't know how to pay.
Otherwise, the immorality of not paying that hypothetical debt is greater, and pushes the moral balance toward defaulting.
Each of the items one might have to cut in order to not end up with more unpayable debt than the US has right now also has a moral price tag: health benefits, military spending, etc... Those too have to go into the equation of how one minimizes the moral wrong that will be committed.
I agree with much of what you say aswell. The real point, though, is that the whole is issue a moral one -- and should be recognized as such and discussed as such. There is a moral obligation to meet one's debt obligations and this must be recognized in the discussion. The result is that there may be less money available for other needs -- which may also have a moral motivation. One must thus consider the moral necessity to morally prioritize with a recognition that even spending which is morally compelled may have to be placed aside because of other morally compelled spendings which have priority. It would be nice to see a language of this nature being used in the debate, rather than simply outlinging the benefits of costs and/or benefits of each item in a vacuum. This discusssion must still be done within the context of this existent debt and the moral obligation to service it.
I guess I am bothered by people who don't like this debt who simply seem to want to ignore its reality and the reality of this moral obligation. I don't think it is right to use paying it politically. On the other hand, there is also a clear moral problem with individuals willing to pay, even for worthwhile projects, without a consideration of the responsibility to pay for it.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment