Sticking Your Kids With Your Debt

I typically have two big issues which I judge political candidates on: the environment and the national debt.

Almost every year, both issues have been completely overlooked in the election process by both parties. However, this year, the environment actually is being talked about and the Democrats seem to have some plans to improve things.

The national debt has had no discussion whatsoever. Have we forgotten that the yearly budget deficit, brought to zero under President Clinton, is now higher than it's ever been? President Bush and the Republican Congress ran up a massive amount of debt that we are going to have to pay back.

Correction - our children will be paying it. Which brings me to a point, brought up eloquently by Oliver "Buzz" Thomas, a minister, lawyer and author of the book "10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job)."

Thomas wrote a blog post for USA Today earlier this month about our penchant for debt. He feels that we are violating fundamental religious principles by running up this debt and putting in no effort to pay it back. Essentially, it is like building up a $30,000 credit card bill and then leaving it to your children.

Would you do that? Probably not. But, as Thomas points out, it is just easier when it is a distant, shapeless blob like the national debt. And our politicians, especially the spendy Republican President we have, don't help. Can't blame it on the war either. This administration has increased the national debt every year without even counting war expenses.

As Thomas puts it, "Whether you're Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Zoroastrian, your tradition has taught you at least this: a) Pay your bills and b) Provide for your children. Right now, we are doing neither.

So why aren't our politicians talking about it? Probably because it will be uncomfortable to pay back the debt. Services will have to be cut. Taxes will have to be raised (sorry W - your way ain't-a workin').

We have to re-insert this into our national discussion again. Do we need to resurrect Ross Perot to bring back the topic of paying the debt? I hope not.

Al Gore Should Host a Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate on the Environment

I was inspired reading the Time magazine article (read the whole thing here) on Al Gore where he was quoted as saying "If I do my job right, all the candidates will be talking about the climate crisis."

Hmm. I visualize Al Gore being the moderator at a Democratic Presidential Candidate debate that has one topic and one topic only: the environment.

Can you imagine? He would ask them great questions. They would be forced to bone up on the issues of climate crisis and come up with credible responses. If we're going to be faced with ten or twenty debates this year anyway, why not have one of them facilitated by Gore and focused on one extremely important issue?

The candidates of both parties are getting away too easily without having to face tough questions about the environment. Each candidate needs to be confronted by a knowledgeable questioner:

• What would you do about carbon emissions?
• Are you in favor of a carbon tax replacing the payroll tax (as Gore has proposed)?
  
• Would you allow new coal plants to be built?
  
• Do you think nuclear power is part of the solution?
• How would you advance biofuels, particularly cellulosic ethanol from corn stalks, straw and switchgrass?
• How can the United States become a world leader in reducing emissions?
• Will you create and enforce CAFE standards for automobile miles/gallon?
• How would you incent Americans to drive hybrid cars?
• Would you invest in solar and wind power research?
• Would you work on building a hydrogen infrastructure for fuel cell cars?
  

I really, really want to know what the candidates answers to these questions are. Do you? What do you think?

Maybe after that we could have a healthcare debate moderated by Dr. Andrew Weil.