For the 70-somethingth time, the U.S. Congress is debating whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. And for the 70-somethingth time, the U.S. Congress is wasting its time. Failure to raise the debt ceiling would not only be potentially catastrophic, but stupid. In fact, having to even think about whether the debt ceiling should be raised is itself potentially catastrophic and stupid.

As we all know, the purpose of raising the debt ceiling is to enable the government to borrow funds to pay for activities and items that the government has already approved. Failure to raise the debt ceiling would be to tell the government that it can sign contracts for activities that will cost the country money, but once those activities are completed, the government will not honor its contracts and pay for them. That’s a little simplistic, to be sure. But that’s the gist.

The House Republicans are saying that they won’t support paying our bills when due unless we agree to cut spending in the future. But this is apples and oranges. One has to do with bills already incurred and one has to do with obligations to be made in the future. It is immoral and dumb to condition the firsts on the second.

It may be that our national debt is too high, and cutting back on some expenditures may be part of the answer. But there are other parts of the answer: our tax policies of rewarding the rich at the expense of the poor are part of the problems, as are the costs of becoming involved in distant wars.

There has been a large rise in governmental debt during this first quarter of the 21st century (putting aside the rise during the Reagan years). George W. Bush got us into horrific wars and presided over a major recession (almost a depression), and the rise continued during the Obama years. Then Donald Trump doubled the rate of increase during his four years in office. He was fighting Covid, to be sure, but he also orchestrated tax decreases that cost the government several billions of dollars.

The debate over the debt ceiling increase has no upside. It threatens our already threatened economy. You can expect that the stock market will drop precipitously, hurting those who depend on 401ks and the like, and this will increase serious recession chances. It will also raise interest rates on United States bonds, exacerbating the problem but putting even more pressure on the economy. And all for nothing – all to debate whether we should pay for expenditures already authorized, due and owing. Yes, it is stupid.

But, although Congress will not pass the legislation to be passed by the House of Representatives (with the necessary votes of George Santos, Marjorie Taylor Green, Paul Gosar and Lauren Boebert), and if Congress did pass the bill, the President would veto it. But obviously, no bill will pass Congress without the vote of the House, and it remains to be seen whether Kevin McCarthy (Speaker by one vote) will allow a bill to the House floor unless he knows that it will carry. So I don’t know where we are, but I know we don’t want to be here.

And as to George Santos, three more revelations today?

1. His mother was in Brazil on 9/11 and thus not a “survivor” of 9/11.
2. He never performed as a drag queen in Brazil, although not only corroboration but presumed photographic evidence exists.
3. He sponsored a Go Fund Me for a disabled veteran whose service dog needed surgery, and pocketed the proceeds.

Add these to the list. He isn’t Jewish or Jew-ish, he didn’t work for Goldman Sacks, he didn’t work for Citigroup, he didn’t go to Horace Mann H.S., he didn’t go to Baruch College, he didn’t go to NYU, he didn’t play on a championship school volleyball team, he was not vice president of LinkBridge Investors, he didn’t found a legitimate animal charity, he has no husband (there is no marriage record anywhere), and he had no employees lost in the Pulse shooting in Orlando, In addition, he is being investigated in Brazil for check fraud.

And what will be Alex Baldwin’s defense? “I Didn’t Know the Gun was Loaded and I’ll Never, Never Do It Again.” This was really a tragic situation. And it seems clear that Baldwin wasn’t trying to kill anyone. But involuntary manslaughter is a statute that covers incidences when (1) someone is killed, (2) there was no intention or premeditation, and (3) there was gross negligence, or its equivalent, involved. (As to any situation such as this where a celebrity becomes involved, my mind goes to my grandmother, who once said, after Lana Turner slipped in the bathtub and injured herself: “and with all that money”).

And what about the six year old who shot his teacher? His parents say that the gun was in his mother’s closet over six feet up on a shelf, locked with a trigger lock that required a key to open. And that he had an “acute disability” (what is that?). And that, up until that day, he always had a parent with him……so weird.