So what would Romney borrow money from China to pay for? | Heather Hurlburt
by Heather Hurlburt
October 4, 2012 | The Guardian
When Governor Romney turned to Jim Lehrer last night and pledged, “I will eliminate programs by this test, if they don’t pass it: is the program so critical that it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I’ll get rid of it,” he seemed to be inviting another one of the moderator’s philosophical questions.
It hung in the air unasked, instead. In an interdependent global economy, what is worth borrowing money from a competitor and potential adversary for?
Perhaps the answer is: anything I, my party, my political philosophy, wants, because money is fungible. Because the US economy is too big to fail. Because borrowing and the debt are part of how giant entities do business, and not as catastrophic as our national dialogue in recent months would suggest.
Or perhaps the answer is: anything that will ultimately make our economy and society stronger to compete against and cooperate with China in growing the global economy and maintaining security. That test would offer some interesting moments.
Borrowing money to invest in cheap, clean, high-tech energy sources, technology and infrastructure – which will, in turn, generate jobs and world-beating exports. Seems like a no-brainer.
Borrowing money to invest in five-figure tax cuts for that 0.01% of wealthiest “job-creators”? Sure, if you believe in trickle-down economics. Certainly not, if you don’t.
Borrowing money to promote social cohesion? Well, do you believe we need social cohesion to be an effective, competitive society? Thinking about China, perhaps one of the world’s cultures that places the highest value on social cohesion – and whose leaders are terrified at the prospect of social unrest – is instructive. And what promotes social cohesion? Keeping our promises to veterans by fully funding the veterans administration? Providing healthcare and dignity to seniors, the poor and vulnerable, for the sake of our shared humanity and also our collective public health?
Borrowing money from China to increase the exponential edge our military, the world’s largest, strongest military, has on the competition? Do you believe our military might is the foundation of all our power? Does it make us more economically competitive? Or do you believe, like the current and past chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, that it works the other way around?
What’s more, is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for tanks that can’t be used against China, and which the Pentagon doesn’t want, anyway? Nuclear weapons that top security thinkers believe are obsolete?
Just asking.
Heather Hurlburt is executive director of the National Security Network
For the original piece, click here.
