Looking at this latest round of budget talks in Washington has lead me back to an age old dilemma in if the outcome of compromise is wrong, then is compromise right? As the bottom line with all the Washington wrangling of the last several weeks is the government should not be operating at a deficit period, case closed as far as an operating budget goes. So compromise here is akin to you opening new credit card accounts to pay for old ones. So what are we doing accept digging our self yet a deeper hole to crawl out of in the future if that is even possible (note: personally I give the US less than a 50/50 chance to dig out, without some form of measured default after this last debacle. Talk about some upset Chinese.).
So why was “compromise” center stage in this debate you ask, well to make it simple one side of the aisle said “we need to charge more taxes” while the other shouted “we need to spend less money“. In this, who was right in this highly vocal debate? To answer this, let me ask the question of you, if you’re sitting there looking at bankruptcy and you wish to avoid it what are you going to do? For the prudent person (which I’m sure you are) the answer will be to spend less and use that to pay down your debit as something is better than nothing and even if it takes a longer time then you would like, that’s life as your the accountable party who got yourself in this spot right?
So was it right to compromise on spending cuts, here logic says no, however to qualify one is not suggesting that all cuts are equal as some will clearly have greater impacts then others. As for example a lot of people would jump to cut military spending, however in these times as that would be the worst thing to do as this alone keeps most dollars (because of various rules) at home. So it’s not an act of being a “War Hawk” yet simply looking at financial landscapes and making educated decisions. As each action taken, will have an equal and opposite reaction as a result.
While there are others out there who would make an argument for more taxes, there may be some measure of logic, however that’s for tomorrow’s post as it’s worthy of a discussion of its own right. Also the purpose of this post has been to point out that all compromises are not good, no matter what your mother told you. As compromise will only work [productively] when both sets of ideals which are being “compromised” sit near the middle of the road. However when they sit far a field or in this case deep in a hole, singular outcomes are the only means to right the indiscretions of the past, as compromise will simply add to the sins of the past rather than the solutions of the future if you will…