It looks like the bill passed. CNN outlines some of the solid arguments 'House votes to pass debt ceiling bill in win for McCarthy' There are different views between both parties. While both sides want the nation to succeed and manage its debts appropriately the methods in which they do that is different. At some point they will both need to make some compromises to achieve our national goals.
Here are my thoughts. We need to ensure the financial system is solid and not jackhammered by any abrupt moves that exceed the capacity to consume the change. That helps us avoid overtaxing the financial system at once that leads inappropriate adaptations and capacities to overcome. They might call this a financial crisis.
To me in a sustainable system we will want to have a strong sense of direction as to how to use our resources to achieve our goals. In many ways we have goal confusion. Once we know our goals, we can then align the rest of the system to those needs.
A type of metric of program alignment that gives full scope to hard services and soft services of government. i.e. they call this a truly honest conversation about all programs and what might still serve our purpose and what probably doesn't. No room for political slants here because we must be clear in our thinking and be capable of critical examination. These are serious choices with serious outcomes.
We should look at each component as providing a net positive or net expense. Some things we think of as expenses are actually net positives but need some change to function at their full capacity and be wise stewards of tax payer dollars. Other programs might need to be removed because we cannot reasonably justify their contribution to our long term objectives (i.e. over the horizon thinking).
Some social programs might be enhanced (i.e. education and children's enrichment for human capital development. There could also be nutrition needs and additional new methods of teaching and enrichment) and other things might need to be reduced (subsidize that don't lead to a net positive contribution). Each program should have a full review to ensure it can be adjusted, improved, reused, adapted, etc.. to maximize those resources and ensure program focus (i.e. how renaissance starts to hit other areas of society through the adaptive need)
The problem isn't necessarily the ability to improve the system but the ability to work together to do so in a reasonable way. We are at a point in our nation's history where any political dissonance is likely to be a detractor to our long term health and reasonableness and thoughtful compromise will likely be a contributor to short-and long term success.
There are other market issues such as foreign movement away from the U.S. dollar we should consider when thinking about the long term implications of instability in thinking. We need solutions. That comes from people being focused on the right things and trying to really make a meaningful contribution to the collective of society (In some ways I think if we thought of our whole nation as 100 people whom we knew well, how would we use our resources to ensure the health of our village? In this case a national village. Keeping this on an intimate basis might help us think about the importance of maximizing resources for everyone as though each American is valuable. We sometimes are removed from our choices and the consequences on others. We must be wise. Too many programs you have a problem and too few and you have a problem. We also need a positive cushion to reduce debt. It looks like lots of debate ahead.)
No comments:
Post a Comment