Thomas Friedman, one of my favorite thinkers and writers today, wrote in his op-ed in the New York Times today, “I don’t expect much from the G-20 meeting this week, but if I had my wish, the leaders of the world’s 20 top economies would commit themselves to anew standard of accounting – call it ‘Market to Mother Nature’ accounting.  Why?  Because it’s now obvious that the reason we’re experiencing a simultaneous meltdown in the financial system and the climate system is because we have been mispricing risk in both arenas – producing a huge excess of both toxic assets and toxic air that now threatens the stability of the whole planet”.  

He goes on to talk about risks taken by AIG through use of derivatives that were not appropriately flagged on their balance sheets as well as the risks posed on our environment by all of us without true understanding of the consequences.  

He goes on to provide a great description of our “old system” as follows, “we built more and more stores in America to sell more and more stuff, which was made in more and more Chinese factories powered by more and more coal that earned more and more dollars to buy more and more U.S. T-bills that got recycled back to America in the form of cheap credit to build more and more stores and more and more houses that gave rise to more and more Chinese factories. . . . “   Near the end of the piece he states this system “relied upon risks to the Market and Mother Nature being under priced and to profits being privatized in good times and losses socialized in bad times”.  Great language.

Alright, so what does that have to with anything?  Currently, there is a debate in our state capital and in many others across the country about accepting federal stimulus funds.  In Jefferson City, there is a sentiment in the majority party that federal funds should not be accepted to fund existing programs that are running a shortfall compared to prior years under the guise of prudent stewardship of the public trust.  I am weary of the willing acceptance to harm our fellow citizens under the veil of fiscal austerity.  We allowed the privatizing of the profits, these ill gotten gains, with little or no recourse to the perpetrators; but oh no, we cannot socialize the losses.  That would be terrible.  We can’t deliver meals to disabled seniors with federal stimulus funds because that would create a burden on future budgets.  We can’t provide health care for children for that would cause fiscal harm in the future.  What does that bumper sticker say?  “If you are not outraged, then you are not paying attention”! 

Budgets should be moral instruments and should indicate what we as a people believe in and stand for.  We can do so much better.  We have to care enough to pay attention.  We have to believe enough to think we can make change happen.  We have to speak loudly to those who will accept privatizing gains in wrong ways but not accept socializing the losses due directly to those inappropriate profits.  It is simply not right.    We can be financially wise and morally caring. They are not contradictory... just not easy.  Let’s stop taking the easy way out.