By the way, candidate Edwards . . .

John Edwards is running for president.  No surprise there.  But will he follow through with the moral commitment he made in the 2004 campaign? 

If so, that would be a huge surprise—worthy of a page one headline in the Washington Post. 

Here’s what John Edwards said in one of the 2004 debates:

John Kerry and I believe we have a moral responsibility not to leave trillions of United States Savings Bonds to our children and our grandchildren.

[Oops; I made an inconsequential typographical error there.  Remove “United States Savings Bonds” from the sentence above, and replace it with the word “debt.”  The meaning is exactly the same.  Sorry for the minor mixup.  If you’d like to verify the quote quickly, follow this link, then: (a) in IE, hit Ctrl-F, type the word "trillions", then click "Find Next"; or (b) in Firefox, hit the slash key, then type the word "trillions”. ]

Does Candidate Edwards still consider it a moral imperative to eliminate all those United States Savings Bonds we had planned to bequeath to our children and grandchildren? 

Does he still plan to tax extra money away from us, then use it to buy back those savings bonds sitting in our safe deposit boxes, backing up our loans and insurance policies, and waiting to pay for our kids’ and grandkids’ college education? 

Why would John Edwards want to vaporize our savings bonds?  Why does he think that’s a moral imperative?  (Or, if he doesn’t any more, why did he change his mind?)

Obviously, those are rhetorical questions, because I don’t ever, ever expect John Edwards to resurrect the issue.  After all, 2004 was a long time ago (in political years, which seem to be shorter than dog years or internet years). 

Comments

[muirgeo]

The issues of debt as discussed by Professor Timothy Taylor, Economics 3rd Edition Part 1
From The Teaching Company

When government budget deficits are large and sustained over time, they soak up a large share of the available private savings in the economy. Two possible effects can result. First, less financial capital may be available for private investment, which is sometimes called crowding out. Second, the U.S. economy may need to draw in financial capital from foreign investors. In the long term, neither a reduction in private investment nor an ever-growing reliance on inflows of foreign capital is healthy for the U.S. economy.

[Andy]

To Muirgeo:

First, you may want to check out this article dealing with the Crowding Out theory:

http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/11/fq0645_favorite.html

Second, you may also want to check out just how little capital (compared with common assumption) we are drawing from foreign investors:

http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2006/05/pie_chart_of_wh.html

Although, why would it bother you that anyone, foreign or domestic, would want to invest in our country - so confidently, in fact, that thy're willing to charge us such a low interest rate?

[jo average]

So you want to tax away your fellow citizens money who maybe can not afford a US savings bond to let them pay for intrest on your United States Savings Bonds.
Why ask fellow citizens for money when you can invest somewhere else. And what was your Gift Contribution to Reduce
Debt Held by the Public last year!

[Bob]

jo average,

The debt (bonds) is used to finance government spending in excess of revenue (taxes). That spending covers a wide range of social programs such as low interest school loans, disaster relief (Katrina) and many others. You can look them up. It's a darn good thing people buy the bonds otherwise all the social programs that the Dems want could not be funded.

[Ben]

If the 2008 presidential election is anything like the last few, then you can't expect any reasonable candidate to be Pro-Debt or Pro-Deficit. As long as 99% of voters believe that deficits are bad, you have to settle for the Reagan-type: candidates who campaign on vague promises of reducing the deficit, but also advocate specific policies that will maintain the deficits.

Here, Edwards admits (16:54) that he considers his spending priorities to be more important than debt reduction:
http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/
MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=
91959525&s=143459&i=13221698

[John Nelson]

John Kerry and I believe we have a moral responsibility not to leave trillions of United States Savings Bonds to our children and our grandchildren when it is only backed by the hope of future gains.

[Oops: another misquote. If there is no debt, then the bonds have been paid and money can be inherited.]