I’m all about puns, so a New Republic article called “Debt Man Walking” caught my attention. The article sets out in layman’s terms the process by which the dollar – and America’s financial health – became tied to other nations’ economies. I won’t attempt to summarize the piece; rather, I’ll fast-forward to the point where the author, John Judis, discusses the state of our economy and how it arose from a cauldron of international spending and borrowing.

Asian countries – China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, specifically – have historically invested outside their home countries in foreign growth opportunities, generally U.S. Treasury bills. (Nations invest their own currencies abroad to limit those currencies’ value, making exported items more attractive to Western consumers.) America was only too happy to participate, since a steady flow of foreign investment enabled the federal government to increase spending while cutting taxes and keeping interest rates low. We are, in a sense, borrowing from Asia to wage wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and keep our economy afloat.

Easily available credit is all well and good, but if a debtor borrows too zealously, he can be in a world of trouble when creditors come calling. The banking industry (for example) was devastated when lines of credit dried up, but the same has not yet happened to the federal government. Asian nations are, for the time being, willing to sink money into American government securities. But change appears to be coming: China announced its intentions to spend $586 billion on infrastructure. That’s $586 billion they won’t be investing here.

When credit is easily available, consumers and governments will gorge on it. American consumers have feasted on easy, cheap credit, buying bigger houses and more toys. But credit isn’t as cheap or easy to get as it once was, and consumers are feeling pinched by higher energy prices, smaller retirement accounts, and plummeting home values. Our government is guilty of credit gluttony, too: decades of foreign investment have allowed it – somewhat unrealistically – to spend while dialing back tax revenue. The government’s spending binge cannot continue unabated, but other countries’ investment decisions may force it to act responsibly. Consumers would be unlikely to curtail their rampant consumption without the influence of outside forces – should we expect our government to behave any differently?

Perhaps we should expect better. Consumer confidence is extremely low; even if the IRS attempted to inject life into the economy by issuing rebate checks, people would be likely to save the money or use it to pay down debt. But the government’s role should not be to keep people happy: it should be to keep them safe. And a federal government that accepted foreign countries’ investment to fund two costly wars is hardly fulfilling its duty to American citizens. Maybe that’s the problem: we were seen as consumers, not citizens, and the government acted accordingly. Let’s hope a return to responsibility is at hand.