A guide to using analogies to explain complex political issues

Last week, people started sharing an image on Facebook that claimed to put the budget issues facing our country in perspective by comparing the numbers to a household budget. Just like my last post, that makes sense if you don't really think about it.

The problem with this analogy is that the situation is far more complex than the comparison allows. For starters, a worker cannot raise his household revenue in the same way a government can. Yes, a family member could work more hours or get a second job, but that's assuming that the hours or job is available. As many people today will tell you, getting a job, let alone a second job is far from a sure thing. A government, meanwhile, has many ways to raise revenue that are guaranteed.

On the other side, government debt and household debt are vastly different. A government can borrow money at a rate close to zero percent, while a household has to pay a much higher rate. In addition, a government can get far more value for their borrowing than a household can.

That's not to say that our government does not need to spend less. I'm simply saying that the comparison between a household budget and a government budget is so flawed as to render such a comparison meaningless.

That being said, one can make an easy to understand analogy to help to understand the debt ceiling debate. Here we go.

In this scenario, Congress is a teenager going off to college and the President is the teenager's parent. The teenager has a credit card that the teenager can use but which the parent is 100% responsible for paying. The teenager says "I will only spend $100 dollars on this credit card. I will even get a law passed that says I can only spend $100 on this credit card unless I get legal permission to raise that limit."

Time passes and the teenager spends $125 on the credit card. The parent is now responsible for paying the bill. The credit card company wants their $125. The parent must now pay the bill that the teenager racked up. The parent, however, is legally prevented from spending more than the $100 that the teenager promised to pay the bill.

So, the parent (President) cannot pay the bill unless the teenager (Congress) who has already spent the money changes the law allowing the parent to pay the bill.

The "debt ceiling" has nothing to do with future borrowing. It has nothing to do with the government spending too much in the future. Not raising the debt ceiling would be like telling the parent that he cannot pay his child's bill, thus causing his household (the country's) credit rating to decline.

So by saying that we should not raise the debt ceiling, you are saying that the country should default on it's obligation to pay its bills on MONEY THE CONGRESS HAS ALREADY SPENT.

Raising the debt ceiling is a no-brainer. Threatening to not raise the debt ceiling to extract some political gain from the opposition party is treasonous, and it would be so if Democrats were the ones threatening to do so.. Politicians who do so are threatening to lessen your country's economic standing so their side can "win." Paying the bills on money already spent is not a political question.