What's heartless about concern for government debt?

Jan. 28, 2013
President Barack Obama delivered a whopper in a Jan. 14 press conference during which he pressed his campaign to marginalize political opposition.

President Barack Obama delivered a whopper in a Jan. 14 press conference during which he pressed his campaign to marginalize political opposition.

He made one statement immune to dispute, however.

House Republicans, the president said, "have a particular vision about what the government should and should not do."

Indeed. Then came misrepresentation.

"They are suspicious about government's commitments...to make sure that seniors have decent health care as they get older," Obama said. "They have suspicions about Social Security. They have suspicions about whether government should make sure that kids in poverty are getting enough to eat or whether we should be spending money on medical research."

So Republicans, by this analysis, oppose help for the old, the young, and the sick. The logical response is to oust the scoundrels.

Yet the premises are untrue.

Republicans—most of them, anyway—harbor no great suspicion about health care for the elderly or any of the rest. What they're suspicious about is the government's ability to fund its commitments without enlarging debt. For elected officials, this represents an area of legitimate concern. Some might call it a responsibility.

Yet when Republicans question the fiscal ramifications of spending ever more on social programs and beyond, Democrats accuse them of heartlessly trying to deprive the needy. That Democrats control the White House and Senate testifies to the efficacy of this deception.

Republicans do harbor a vision for the US government more constrained than that of Democrats. The role of government is a fundamental question over which well-meaning citizens quite properly disagree. This is why the US has more than one political party.

Now one party dominates, but the other hasn't disappeared. Republicans exert the influence they retain by responding to every proposal with two questions:

1. Is this a proper function of government?

2. Can the country afford it?

Asking those questions doesn't starve children or turn old people onto the street. It ensures programs in place now remain in place.

What's heartless about that?