September 11th Courage, Political Courage, and the National Debt
On 9/11, we honor the courage of many people, including passengers and crew of Flight 93. Our government leaders need political courage today to deal with the national debt. Here is an example of political courage, and some devastating examples of its opposite.
On September 11, 2001, 25 years ago, I was in the U.S. Capitol building in Washington when the third airplane hit the Pentagon. The fourth plane was probably headed for the Capitol building when it was stopped by courageous passengers who fought the terrorists who had taken control of their plane. Their actions may have saved my life.
Most people never have to face the choice of sacrificing their life for the sake of another. However, all of us face smaller sacrifices that we either embrace or turn away from in order to preserve our comfort or position.
Government leaders face many such smaller choices, and their decisions often have enormous consequences, especially when it comes to spending and taxes. What does it look like when they show courage and when they fall short?
Our 9/11 observances recognize courage
When we commemorate 9/11, we mourn the innocent victims, but we also celebrate the sacrifices of those who worked to save them. In particular:
We remember those who were killed by terrorists in the twin towers in New York and in the Pentagon outside of Washington, DC.
We honor the first responders who went into the blazing buildings to save people.
We honor people who got out safely and chose to go back into the inferno to save others.
And we honor the 40 passengers and crew who were on the fourth plane, Flight 93. When they made phone calls to their loved ones and learned that other planes had been turned into suicide weapons killing many, they chose to storm the cockpit and fight their hijackers rather than passively hope that they might survive.
Courage has many faces. But in every case, it requires a willingness to risk something you care about, to serve a greater good. It is fitting that we honor such heroes.
What does political courage look like?
President John F Kennedy, Jr., with the extensive help of his speechwriter Ted Sorensen, wrote a book called Profiles in Courage that described moments throughout history when Senators followed their conscience, resisted the demands of party leaders and the wishes of their constituents, and did what they believed was right. Kennedy called this “political courage.”
Political courage requires a politician to rise above the pressure to be liked, the desire for re-election, and the demands of constituents and interest groups, and do what their conscience tells them is right.
In 1993, when I was working on Capitol Hill, Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky (D-PA) made a difficult decision that cost her her seat in Congress. She cast a vote for a bill that she knew would result in her defeat in the next election. The bill, championed by President Bill Clinton, attempted to deal with a large budget deficit through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
During her 1992 election campaign, Margolies-Mezvinsky had promised not to raise taxes. She argued that the government needed to focus on job creation, health care, and education, but it also needed to rein in spending. She thought that this particular bill should have had more spending cuts. President Bill Clinton asked her to support the bill as a first step in his broader agenda. She responded that if she did so, it would be “tantamount to political suicide.” But when the outcome came down to one vote, she did what she thought was right to move the nation forward.
Because of Rep. Margolies-Mezvinsky’s vote, the bill passed and was signed into law. As she expected, she was voted out of office the next year. Congress passed additional deficit reduction measures under President Clinton, and the United States entered the 21st century with 4 straight years of budget surpluses.
Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky demonstrated political courage in putting the common good of the nation ahead of her re-election and the demands of her constituents.
Budget deficits and the national debt are a test of political courage
Politicians face pressure from people who want them to increase spending and to cut taxes. If they do both, the government runs a deficit and must borrow money.
The resulting national debt matters for 3 reasons:
Every year, the government must pay interest on the debt accumulated during the preceding Congresses. Money spent on interest can’t be spent on other productive programs or returned to the people through lower taxes.
If the federal debt is large enough, it can drive up interest rates, making it harder for people to afford a mortgage and for businesses to take out loans to expand their enterprises.
The national debt is passed on to future generations who had no voice in the decision to take on that debt but must pay its costs.
A small amount of government debt is not a bad thing – responsible families also take on debt for the purchase of a house, a car, education, and other things that contribute to the long-term welfare of the family. But when the level of debt grows too large, something must be done. Just as families must sometimes cut spending or increase income, responsible governments sometimes must cut spending and increase taxes.
When I worked on Capitol Hill, Democrats tended to be more interested in increasing spending for government assistance programs, while Republicans tended to be more interested in cutting taxes. Many Representatives and Senators, however, were willing to work across the aisle and across the conservative-liberal divide to craft compromise packages that would reduce the risk that federal deficits would become a burden on the economy and future generations.
It took political courage to develop and support those compromises. There were always many people who were unhappy with the specified spending cuts and tax increases, and few constituents praised the focus on deficit reduction.
Leaders who have political courage are willing to work with people they don’t agree with and find compromises that no one loves, to seek what is best for the nation in the long term despite the pain it inflicts at the time. This is what it means to serve the common good.
Acting for the common good
How can we judge whether a budget package is a courageous effort to serve the common good or an irresponsible act of self-serving?
First, it must serve the good of the people as a whole, not just particular interests. Pope Leo XIV said it well in his recent encyclical, where he wrote that the common good is “a greater good that belongs to everyone” (Magnifica Humanitas, 60).
To serve the common good, any spending bill, tax bill, or deficit reduction package must not just provide individual benefits for specific interest groups. It must serve a greater good that benefits everyone, including the generations to come. When it panders to people’s immediate self-interest at the expense of the common good, it is not worthy of common support.
Recent failures of political courage
Our leaders have not always showed such political courage. The opposite of a budget deficit is a budget surplus. The federal government has not had a budget surplus since the final 4 years of Bill Clinton’s presidency (fiscal years 1998-2001), and before that since the final year of Lyndon Johson’s presidency (fiscal year 1969).
Deficits aren’t always bad. When the economy is struggling, increased spending allows the government to help citizens in their time of need. But when the economy is growing, deficits should be declining, even if that takes political courage. That is where recent leaders have failed.
In the first year after President Clinton’s 4 years of surpluses, when the economy was strong, President George W. Bush passed a major tax cut bill that returned our nation to an age of deficits that we still live in today.
During the Great Recession, the deficit ballooned to over $1 trillion as the government addressed serious economic suffering. As the economy recovered, a Republican Congress joined with President Trump to pass a huge tax cut bill in 2017 that drove the deficit higher.
When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Congress dramatically expanded spending and the deficit soared to more than $3 trillion. When economic conditions improved, the Republican Congress and President Trump again cut taxes in 2025. As a result, the 2026 deficit is projected to be $1.9 trillion, even though the unemployment rate is at an historically very low level.
If debt matters, if deficits matter, these were poor decisions.
A new high in political spinelessness
On September 9, 2026, two days before America was set to commemorate the 25th anniversary of 9/11 and the courage of those who sacrificed their lives for others, the President of the United States, with the November national elections in mind, proposed the most breathtaking assault on fiscal responsibility that I have ever seen.
He announced a plan to give every American adult $5,000. He said, “So, if the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000.” He then humbly added, “It will be called the Trump Dividend.”
The Wall Street Journal noted that this program would cost $1 trillion: “more than the government spends on national defense each year.”
Throughout this past summer, as the federal government debt crossed the $40 billion mark, economists, Wall Street executives, and market analysts have been warning about the damage this high level of debt causes in bond markets and in the economy. They are telling us that the current path is unsustainable, as deficits are projected to rise to more than $3 trillion a year by 2036. We need leaders with the political courage to make unpopular compromises to reduce the deficit.
We also know that the Social Security program will run out of money to fully pay its obligations in a few years. There, too, we need political courage, to avert the crisis through some combination of (unpopular) benefit cuts and tax increases.
Instead, the President has proposed a massive expansion of the problem, appealing to people’s short-term desires when the common good demands a focus on long-term restraint.
This proposal is a surrender to the pressures John Kennedy warned about: “pressure to be liked, pressure to be re-elected, and pressure of the constituency and interest groups.” It shows no concern for the common good.
This is a sign of political spinelessness, pure and simple.
Count the cost, and do what is best for others, not just yourself
In a different context, Jesus warned about counting the cost, but the words are relevant here:
For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, “This man began to build and was not able to finish” (Luke 14:28-30, ESV).
The financial leaders of our country are flashing bright warning signs that if we refuse to count the cost of profligate tax cuts and uncontrolled spending, there will be a reckoning. This requires that our political leaders stop doing the easy thing and instead do the courageous thing.
As the Apostle Paul writes:
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others (1 Cor. 12:4–7, ESV).
The heroes of 9/11 considered the interests of others.
Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky counted the cost of voting to reduce the deficit and went ahead for the common good.
It's time for our leaders to count the long-term cost of their unsustainable budget deficits and their latest tax cut schemes, put the common good head of their own interests, and make the painful compromises necessary to restore our nation’s fiscal sanity.
Comments