In his State of the Union speech, President Obama was in fine form. The president proudly listed his achievements. The war in Iraq is over. The war in Afghanistan soon will be. Osama bin Laden is dead. The housing market has shown improvement. The economy, though still weak, at least for the time being is no longer moribund. Justice and fairness have been advanced on all fronts. Homophobia is on the run. Yes, there have been missteps and failures, but the president cannot be blamed for those. If he erred, it was in wanting to do too much and help too many. Given the stubborn opposition to his policies by the GOP and the magnitude of the task he assumed, naturally he would fall short, who wouldn't?
The president admitted that the task of getting the economy up and running is, after four years, trillions of dollars, numerous policies, and countless speeches, an unfinished one. Nevertheless, he states that progress has been made, even if it has only been in "clearing the rubble" Presumably, he meant the rubble of the auto industry crisis and the Wall Street bailout. He did not mention that after four years in office unemployment in the U.S. is three points higher than when he took office or that the median household income in the U.S. has fallen over $4,000 from when he was sworn in in 2008. Neither did he mention the fact that the U.S. has added $4.8 trillion to the national debt under his first administration and is poised to add another $1.5 trillion this year other than to offer some vague words about getting it under control. All he offered were hope and bromides regarding America's greatness, endurance, and the ability to rise to any challenge. Some of the rubble left by President Bush may have been cleared but in its stead all we have are vacant lots.
The president has spoken regularly of "raising revenue", and the need for more government "investment". He can call it whatever he likes but taxes and spending by any other name taste just as bitter. Plans are regularly floated to trim the deficit but all Obama and the democrats have had to offer on the matter is a little pruning. Even if Washington is able to trim deficits, the crisis will continue to get worse until Washington can produce some black ink, and not just for a year or two, but for decades. Every drop of red ink adds to the debt and it is the debt that threatens to ruin us, not deficits. Every dollar paid in interest on the debt is money taken out of the economy and put in the hands of our lenders.
What abets Obama in this endeavor is that a great many people voted for him in disregard for the economy and the
"state of the nation". They ignored the growing debt and the stagnant
economy. For most Americans, at least the 65.9 million that voted for Obama, the struggle over the debt is little more than a distraction being used by Obama's opponents to undermine his presidency.They have not yet grasped the implications of adding trillions more to the national debt. They have not yet felt its weight. They have not yet been asked to pay more and accept less. They have not yet been asked to prioritize their needs and identify what they can live without. They have not yet been asked to choose between a clean environment and safe food. They have not yet experienced the nightmare of an insolvent government and the economic calamity that would ensue.We have only record borrowing to thank for that.
In his speech, Obama was willing to accede to the fact that the government cannot continue to run deficits as it has been doing over the last four years, but he was unwilling to put forward any meaningful steps to address the problem other than proposing to increase revenue by raising taxes on the usual suspects and trimming unidentified waste. Naturally, the revenue would be generated by raising taxes on the "rich" and closing "loopholes" in the tax code. Even if he gets the increases he seeks, he will not get the $1.5 trillion he needs to balance the budget. He could take every dime from every billionaire and not scratch the debt. The tax increases required to cover the deficit would devastate the economy and likely spawn a rebellion. Neither will he find $1.5 trillion in waste to cut. Every dollar spent by Washington has a constituency that will fight to keep it. Despite his impressive oratory, all the president could offer were bromides to America's "greatness" and confidence in its ability to meet adversity and rise to challenge. We won WWII and put a man on the moon. Surely we will find a way out of this mess.
The reason it is so difficult for progressives to cut taxes and reduce spending is because either would undermine the power of Washington. Taxes are the lifeblood of government. Without money, the power of government to control society is hobbled. The agencies, bureaus, and departments that oversee almost all activity in this nation would be impaired by reduced budgets. The ability to enforce their regulations and preside over their respective domains would decrease in proportion to loss of funding. Workers would have to be laid off. Enforcement would have to be cut back and prioritized. The funds distributed by those agencies would have to be reduced. That would result in less leverage in ensuring compliance with federal programs where funds are usually tethered to adherence to federal edicts. Without the threat of curtailing federal funding many state and local governments would be loosed from the need to comply. They might be hamstrung, but they would be free to conduct their affairs according to their own political circumstances.
The debt is a regular feature in the news, indeed it is the elephant in the room. The public might be distracted by social issues and calamitous events but the lingering issue in Washington at the moment is the budget. As grinding as budget negotiations are, there must be relief in the White House when a hurricane or blizzard hits for it gives the administration a respite from the struggle and gives it the opportunity to put aside politics and demonstrate why government is necessary and that it can help. But, let's assume Obama does get the money needed to keep our lenders at bay, would we be better for it? Would an additional $100 billion taken out of the economy to pay interest on the debt serve to improve it? Would $100 billion less in the hands of businesses and consumers stimulate the economy? Will simply paying interest on the debt get us out of our bind?
A key difference between
liberals and conservatives is that liberals do not trust the people of
this nation to act in a manner that will advance society in its march to the future. Left to
themselves, people will fritter away their money on things that they
want rather than in a manner that will move society forward. They will buy new cars, new televisions, and new clothes. They
will take trips and go to restaurants. They will stagnate in their ignorance and prejudices. They will turn a cold shoulder to the needy and the suffering. Without government prodding and guidance, society will slip backwards into ignorance, hate, and greed. That is what progressives seek to prevent through active government and social policy.
A great many people voted for Obama in disregard for the economy and the
"state of the nation". They ignored the growing debt and the stagnant
economy. They were told that they had a choice of what kind of nation they want to live in. Many voters were enchanted by what another four years under Obama might bring. They voted for the chimeras of "social justice" "progress", and "fairness". Other voters were frightened by the prospect of being thrown to the wolves of Wall Street. They were convinced that only Washington could offer them protection against the vicissitudes of fate and then only if Democrats controlled it. They believe that, no matter how bad things get, democrats will never let them be mistreated, disrespected, or cast out in the street.
The reality is that there are too many people in this country
dependent on government spending in one way or another and too many
people stubborn in their belief that government can cure the ills that
have been plaguing our nation since its founding for government to be
cut in any meaningful way. Indeed, even after four years of record
spending and a near historical expansion of government power and the
meager results achieved by it, many are persuaded that what the nation needs is even more spending and more government. It is akin to believing that you fail to fix something with a hammer, the solution is to get a bigger hammer.
Obama won in in 2008 by running on hope. He won in 2012 by running on fear. While hope and fear are powerful rhetorical tools on the campaign trail, as a method of governance, they are a recipe for disaster. Emotion will not resolve the issues facing the nation. It certainly will not balance the budget. An emotional electorate is an irrational one. But then, only an irrational electorate would reelect a man who threatens to spend the U.S. into poverty.
It is reckless and irresponsible for politicians to continually put off making hard decisions in favor of temporary measures that fail to address the budget in favor of stop gap measures and financial expedients. By putting off tax increases and spending cuts we only buy a little time and, in the process, make matters worse as the debt mounts. Any politician that says that adding another trillion or two to the national debt will make things any easier in the future is either lying to you or woefully naive. Borrowing only makes good sense if it is believed that it will result in more earnings or if there is a reasonable expectation that you can pay it back in the future without exposing yourself to privation. Simply borrowing money without making any effort to change the circumstances that led you into trouble is reckless.
There are no plans in Washington to start paying down on the debt that are not based on speculation and assumption. The very best it can offer are plans to decrease the rate of its growth. Against the disturbing economic numbers we are offered only optimism and promises. It is predicted that the economy will recover sufficiently so that the government will once again have a surplus. It is promised that when that surplus arises, it will be applied to paying down the debt and lightening the burden being placed on tax payers. History tells us that neither scenario is likely.
By nature, government is preoccupied with expanding its control and increasing the resources at its disposal. Money is essential to both endeavors. Money and power are never willingly given up by government. They are only pried out of its hands. Progressives live by government. They will never willingly surrender power or the money needed to exercise it. That is why the debate in Washington is so contentious. It might seem that the struggle is over money, but it really isn't. It is about power.
Democrats consistently try to paint the GOP as a party of hard hearted men willing to sacrifice the poor to advance the interests of the wealthy while casting themselves as the party trying to help the common man. Republicans want to reduce spending and cut government programs in adherence to cold blooded economics well aware that the brunt of the cuts will be at the expense of those who rely on government.for their well being. Democrats assert that all they want is to want to help and protect those in need by expanding the power and reach of government, and the only way to do that is to spend money. If they succeed in casting themselves as the party that wants to give and republicans as the party that wants to take, they can't lose.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Let's Do it for the Kids
Once again, children are out front in Washington. It has become a useful tactic for politicians to use children to advance policy. In the latest efforts to curb guns in the U.S., the children who died in Aurora are the catalyst for the new push. This is not to say that the nation does not mourn adults who die due to gun violence, it is that dead children add a poignancy to the issue it otherwise lacks. Who mourns cheating husbands, gang members, drug dealers, and would be muggers? Even though the vast majority of gun violence in the U.S. revolves around criminals, any gun control policy drafted around such people would be a waste of time. No, a more sympathetic group is required. What better group is there than children?
Whether the issue is welfare reform, obesity, smoking, or immigration reform, the first and best line of defense for policy is children. This is because everyone wants to protect children from harm. Yes, there are too many fat people in the U.S. But it is for the sake of the children who are fat (for no reason of their own we are told) that we must act. Yes, there are too many people who still smoke but it is to protect our children from being seduced or enticed into smoking that we need to snuff the tobacco industry out. Yes, people are being shot and killed everyday in America, but it is for the sake of our children that gun ownership be limited or banned, not for the, criminals, drug dealers and gangsters who are gunned down everyday on a regular basis.
If subsidized health care care can improve the quality of life for our children, then aren't we obliged to provide it? If restricting school diets and banning junk food can keep our children from becoming obese, aren't we obliged to do so? If loosening immigration laws can lead to a better life for the children of illegal immigrants, doesn't decency demand that that we overlook the violation of our laws and let the family of that child stay? If altering how women are portrayed in the media might reduce self esteem issues in teenage girls, shouldn't we do something about it? If so, then if it can be demonstrated that private ownership of firearms jeopardizes the lives of our children, then we need curb the ownership of them.
We are frequently asked to alter our behavior for the sake of the future. We tend to the environment not so much for ourselves as for those who will come after us.We set aside some of our ambitions when we take upon ourselves the obligation of raising a child. We put off things to ensure we will have the means to assist our children in the future. Strangely, that same logic is not applied to the debt. If balancing the budget can keep our children out of financial peril, shouldn't we do it?
When all else fails, we are asked to do it for the children. We are told we forget for a moment our position on whether the Constitution allows for individuals to own guns and think of the innocent children who are victims of gun violence. We are asked to put aside our concerns over the financial disaster looming in our future to consider what cutbacks in spending will mean to people who are dependent on government spending and their children. We are urged to temper our opinions on immigration and think of the millions of immigrant children who, through no fault of their own, find their futures at risk.
Acting on behalf of our children is fast becoming the first resort of progressives. Our children are alternately used as bait to garner the support of the public and hostages to defend government spending. We are told that we need to act against obesity because children are at risk. We are told we must reform education in this country because if we don't, our children will languish and be fated to low incomes and ignorance. They are also used as shields to protect government programs. When budgets need to be cut we are told it is the children who will suffer, not government workers and contractors.
We want to protect our children from violence even as we remain willfully blind to its causes. We want our children to grow up in stability even as we work to undermine families. We suspend our personal wants to tend to our children's needs. Yet we are willing to subject our children to economic peril through our reckless spending. We are willing to expose them to the social and political turmoil that will inevitably result from changing demographics as different groups and ethnicities jockey for position and power. We are willing to expose our children to anomie as we deconstruct the traditions and virtues upon which our society, indeed every society that has ever existed, was built. We are content to lead them into the subjectivity of "values" by presenting them with a collection of "goods" that are not recognized to be binding, but only desired. We tell our children they should grow up to lead principled, ethical lives even as we can offer them no reason why they should. If we tell our children they should aspire to a modest life free from vanity and limitless desire we do so against long odds as we must compete against a culture that tells them they should have everything. If we attempt to tell our kids that life isn't fair we are countered by those who assert that they are being short changed if they find themselves with less than others.
Society has only a tangential obligation to our kids and that through social casuistry. Nevertheless, for progressives, that is enough. Because progressives conflate the social with the political, that means government has an obligation to our children because to the progressive mind there is no distinction between society and government. If we are to move society forward we have to change what people think and how they behave. Bad behavior must be rooted out and desired behavior instilled in its place. Law has become the preferred method because in addition to their other virtues, progressives are impatient. They do not have the patience to wait for society to come around to their way of thinking. There is also the danger that society might not ever come around unless it is compelled. Left to themselves, people might forever wallow in their ignorance, selfishness, and short sightedness and never find their way to the future. They must be compelled by law. Law can only be passed by government. We can counsel our neighbors as to how they should raise their children but only the government can compel.
We will restrict gun ownership to protect the lives of our children. We will redesign products to protect their safety. We will regulate what food can be offered in school cafeterias to protect their health. We will regulate the media to protect their minds. We like to tell ourselves that we would do anything for our children yet we have been unwilling to get the deficit under control to protect their future. If we are serious about taking care of our children and giving them a secure future, we need to change that.
Whether the issue is welfare reform, obesity, smoking, or immigration reform, the first and best line of defense for policy is children. This is because everyone wants to protect children from harm. Yes, there are too many fat people in the U.S. But it is for the sake of the children who are fat (for no reason of their own we are told) that we must act. Yes, there are too many people who still smoke but it is to protect our children from being seduced or enticed into smoking that we need to snuff the tobacco industry out. Yes, people are being shot and killed everyday in America, but it is for the sake of our children that gun ownership be limited or banned, not for the, criminals, drug dealers and gangsters who are gunned down everyday on a regular basis.
If subsidized health care care can improve the quality of life for our children, then aren't we obliged to provide it? If restricting school diets and banning junk food can keep our children from becoming obese, aren't we obliged to do so? If loosening immigration laws can lead to a better life for the children of illegal immigrants, doesn't decency demand that that we overlook the violation of our laws and let the family of that child stay? If altering how women are portrayed in the media might reduce self esteem issues in teenage girls, shouldn't we do something about it? If so, then if it can be demonstrated that private ownership of firearms jeopardizes the lives of our children, then we need curb the ownership of them.
We are frequently asked to alter our behavior for the sake of the future. We tend to the environment not so much for ourselves as for those who will come after us.We set aside some of our ambitions when we take upon ourselves the obligation of raising a child. We put off things to ensure we will have the means to assist our children in the future. Strangely, that same logic is not applied to the debt. If balancing the budget can keep our children out of financial peril, shouldn't we do it?
When all else fails, we are asked to do it for the children. We are told we forget for a moment our position on whether the Constitution allows for individuals to own guns and think of the innocent children who are victims of gun violence. We are asked to put aside our concerns over the financial disaster looming in our future to consider what cutbacks in spending will mean to people who are dependent on government spending and their children. We are urged to temper our opinions on immigration and think of the millions of immigrant children who, through no fault of their own, find their futures at risk.
Acting on behalf of our children is fast becoming the first resort of progressives. Our children are alternately used as bait to garner the support of the public and hostages to defend government spending. We are told that we need to act against obesity because children are at risk. We are told we must reform education in this country because if we don't, our children will languish and be fated to low incomes and ignorance. They are also used as shields to protect government programs. When budgets need to be cut we are told it is the children who will suffer, not government workers and contractors.
We want to protect our children from violence even as we remain willfully blind to its causes. We want our children to grow up in stability even as we work to undermine families. We suspend our personal wants to tend to our children's needs. Yet we are willing to subject our children to economic peril through our reckless spending. We are willing to expose them to the social and political turmoil that will inevitably result from changing demographics as different groups and ethnicities jockey for position and power. We are willing to expose our children to anomie as we deconstruct the traditions and virtues upon which our society, indeed every society that has ever existed, was built. We are content to lead them into the subjectivity of "values" by presenting them with a collection of "goods" that are not recognized to be binding, but only desired. We tell our children they should grow up to lead principled, ethical lives even as we can offer them no reason why they should. If we tell our children they should aspire to a modest life free from vanity and limitless desire we do so against long odds as we must compete against a culture that tells them they should have everything. If we attempt to tell our kids that life isn't fair we are countered by those who assert that they are being short changed if they find themselves with less than others.
Society has only a tangential obligation to our kids and that through social casuistry. Nevertheless, for progressives, that is enough. Because progressives conflate the social with the political, that means government has an obligation to our children because to the progressive mind there is no distinction between society and government. If we are to move society forward we have to change what people think and how they behave. Bad behavior must be rooted out and desired behavior instilled in its place. Law has become the preferred method because in addition to their other virtues, progressives are impatient. They do not have the patience to wait for society to come around to their way of thinking. There is also the danger that society might not ever come around unless it is compelled. Left to themselves, people might forever wallow in their ignorance, selfishness, and short sightedness and never find their way to the future. They must be compelled by law. Law can only be passed by government. We can counsel our neighbors as to how they should raise their children but only the government can compel.
We will restrict gun ownership to protect the lives of our children. We will redesign products to protect their safety. We will regulate what food can be offered in school cafeterias to protect their health. We will regulate the media to protect their minds. We like to tell ourselves that we would do anything for our children yet we have been unwilling to get the deficit under control to protect their future. If we are serious about taking care of our children and giving them a secure future, we need to change that.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Don't Get Comfortable
The U.S. Senate just sent President Obama a bill that suspended the latest U.S. debt limit until may. The bill will allow the U.S. to exceed the existing debt limit and continue borrowing until May. That means the government can keep writing checks on its overdrawn account for another three months. In return, the president agreed to accept House Republicans' demand that the Senate produce a budget the spring. The Senate has not passed a budget in nearly three years. That is partly because they do not have to and partly because they have been unable to agree on one.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada stated "a clean debt ceiling allows the United States to meet its obligations". What he didn't mention is that the new debt ceiling solves nothing. All it really does is just buy us a little more time. That is a position that might not garner the ranker of conservatives so much if it could be agreed upon exactly are the government's obligations and to what extent it is obliged, that is where the real conflict lies. When, for example, the government decides to take on the responsibility of bailing out industries, regulating the diet of school children, providing health care for all Americans, or finding new sources of alternative fuel, those responsibilities must be funded. Then it must be decided how well it should be funded. Because the government has historically been unwilling to walk away from responsibilities it has taken upon itself, its financial obligations accumulate. The unwillingness of government to retrench is a problem that has many causes. People quickly come to depend on government spending for their well being. Bureaucrats become dependent on government programs and agencies for their jobs. Politicians come to rely upon spending money to preserve their positions and increase their stature. Washington becomes reliant on federal spending to manipulate policy.
As important, according to Reid, the senate's action is a demonstration that "the full faith and credit of the United States will no longer be used as a pawn to extract painful cuts to Medicare, Social Security, or other initiatives that benefit the middle class." Perhaps our government's faith and credit will be preserved for the time being it will once again be in jeopardy when the next need to borrow more money comes up and the struggle over spending resumes. When that happens we will be right back where we started. Neither side, especially the democrats, want that. That is why Obama and congressional democrats want Congress to write a blank check to tide things over. That is why republicans want concrete proposals from the president to reduce spending before they agree to more spending.
If budget negotiations are starting to seem like a game of chicken it is understandable. Time and again Washington has raced to the edge of the financial cliff only to hit the brakes at the last minute when catastrophe loomed. Time and again the brakes have been hit only when children, the poor and the vulnerable were held hostage. We are fated to replay this situation over and over until the government somehow gets spending in accordance with revenue. You do not need a Nobel Prize winning economist to tell you that you cannot continually spend more than you take in and get out of debt. Despite all the rhetoric about "investing: in the economy" and "priming pumps", we have yet to see a return on the money that has so far been spent. Without a return, "investing" and "priming" are just euphemisms for spending.
The single greatest problem facing those who would cut government is that there are too many people in the United States who depend on federal spending in one way or another. Farmers, single mothers, factory workers, teachers, arms manufacturers, indeed, almost all Americans, have become dependent on government spending. The government needs to spend if it to keep the economy moving. As important, spending has become an essential tool for government control. With federal spending comes federal regulation and with that the power to manipulate. That is the real prize. The power to control and shape society is priceless. Progressives will eagerly drive the nation trillions of dollars into debt to obtain that pearl.
Those progressives willing to overlook the debt should consider this: in 2011 the government spent $227 billion in interest on the debt. So far in the 2012 fiscal year it has spent $104 billion. In the 2013 fiscal year it is expected that the government will spend $139.1 billion on education and $132 billion on labor. Those who profess themselves champions of children and the working man should ponder not only what magic could be achieved if the money we spend on interest was spent on programs directed at aiding the "99%", but also how many people could have been fed and clothed? How many people could have been provided shelter and health care? How much more could the government have spent on natural resources and the environment than the paltry $43 billion that it budgeted? There is a common, and dangerous, inclination on the part of many to conflate government spending with "justice", "opportunity", and "equality". If you compile the numbers on federal spending you will quickly find it is nothing of the sort. The great majority of government spending has little to do with helping anyone except tangentially as in the argument that paying interest on the debt allows the government to accumulate more debt so it can theoretically help more people.
It is predicted by some in Washington that deficits will be going down in the future as government stimulus spending winds down and the cost of bail outs dissipates, but that is by no means certain. Once people get a taste of government spending they are loathe to give it up. But even if we accept the optimistic projections that deficits will decline there remains the larger, and more dangerous problem of the debt. As long as there are deficits, no matter how small, the debt will keep going up. All of the talk in Washington about reducing the deficit should be considered in light of the larger picture, the debt. It is a waste of time talking about the debt as long as we operating under historical deficits. Even if somehow Washington was able to pass a budget with a surplus, applying that surplus to the debt is a long way from certain. People win office in this country by spending money on their constituents, not by stiff arming them in order to pay off banks and foreign creditors. If you are a politician and you tell grandma she can't have an increase in her social security because the bankers have to be paid you had better prepare yourself for a new line of work.
Congress should take a break. It is not as if a balanced budget were anywhere in reach. Besides, the debt isn't going anywhere. We have two years before the next elections and things are going the democrats' way. Let's just up the limit on the nation's credit card and move on with our lives. There will still be tens of millions of potential hostages when the next budget battle comes up. It is my hope that Congress will take some time to put budgetary politics aside and let financial reality seep in. Unless it does, we will just keep stumbling from one budget crisis to another.
What undid the Soviet Union was that the Kremlin frequently subordinated economics to politics. Domestic policies were commonly crafted for political ends in disregard for financial facts. The Soviet economy was guided by the politburo, not the market. If the politburo decided that more architects were needed or that more of a particular commodity was required, the order went out for more. If a particular sector of the economy was sagging, edicts were issued to shore it up. We know how that worked out. Had the Soviet Union been able to borrow money indefinitely to keep itself afloat, it might never have collapsed, but it couldn't. When the Soviets faced a financial cliff they had no choice but to go headlong over it. We may still do the same. Being a democracy does not make us immune to ideological error and the laws of economics.
Yes, let's take a little time off. But rather than use the time to devise strategy and gin up support for the next battle, let us use the time to bone up on economics and read a little history. If we spend the time wisely, we might yet still come out of this in good shape.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada stated "a clean debt ceiling allows the United States to meet its obligations". What he didn't mention is that the new debt ceiling solves nothing. All it really does is just buy us a little more time. That is a position that might not garner the ranker of conservatives so much if it could be agreed upon exactly are the government's obligations and to what extent it is obliged, that is where the real conflict lies. When, for example, the government decides to take on the responsibility of bailing out industries, regulating the diet of school children, providing health care for all Americans, or finding new sources of alternative fuel, those responsibilities must be funded. Then it must be decided how well it should be funded. Because the government has historically been unwilling to walk away from responsibilities it has taken upon itself, its financial obligations accumulate. The unwillingness of government to retrench is a problem that has many causes. People quickly come to depend on government spending for their well being. Bureaucrats become dependent on government programs and agencies for their jobs. Politicians come to rely upon spending money to preserve their positions and increase their stature. Washington becomes reliant on federal spending to manipulate policy.
As important, according to Reid, the senate's action is a demonstration that "the full faith and credit of the United States will no longer be used as a pawn to extract painful cuts to Medicare, Social Security, or other initiatives that benefit the middle class." Perhaps our government's faith and credit will be preserved for the time being it will once again be in jeopardy when the next need to borrow more money comes up and the struggle over spending resumes. When that happens we will be right back where we started. Neither side, especially the democrats, want that. That is why Obama and congressional democrats want Congress to write a blank check to tide things over. That is why republicans want concrete proposals from the president to reduce spending before they agree to more spending.
If budget negotiations are starting to seem like a game of chicken it is understandable. Time and again Washington has raced to the edge of the financial cliff only to hit the brakes at the last minute when catastrophe loomed. Time and again the brakes have been hit only when children, the poor and the vulnerable were held hostage. We are fated to replay this situation over and over until the government somehow gets spending in accordance with revenue. You do not need a Nobel Prize winning economist to tell you that you cannot continually spend more than you take in and get out of debt. Despite all the rhetoric about "investing: in the economy" and "priming pumps", we have yet to see a return on the money that has so far been spent. Without a return, "investing" and "priming" are just euphemisms for spending.
The single greatest problem facing those who would cut government is that there are too many people in the United States who depend on federal spending in one way or another. Farmers, single mothers, factory workers, teachers, arms manufacturers, indeed, almost all Americans, have become dependent on government spending. The government needs to spend if it to keep the economy moving. As important, spending has become an essential tool for government control. With federal spending comes federal regulation and with that the power to manipulate. That is the real prize. The power to control and shape society is priceless. Progressives will eagerly drive the nation trillions of dollars into debt to obtain that pearl.
Those progressives willing to overlook the debt should consider this: in 2011 the government spent $227 billion in interest on the debt. So far in the 2012 fiscal year it has spent $104 billion. In the 2013 fiscal year it is expected that the government will spend $139.1 billion on education and $132 billion on labor. Those who profess themselves champions of children and the working man should ponder not only what magic could be achieved if the money we spend on interest was spent on programs directed at aiding the "99%", but also how many people could have been fed and clothed? How many people could have been provided shelter and health care? How much more could the government have spent on natural resources and the environment than the paltry $43 billion that it budgeted? There is a common, and dangerous, inclination on the part of many to conflate government spending with "justice", "opportunity", and "equality". If you compile the numbers on federal spending you will quickly find it is nothing of the sort. The great majority of government spending has little to do with helping anyone except tangentially as in the argument that paying interest on the debt allows the government to accumulate more debt so it can theoretically help more people.
It is predicted by some in Washington that deficits will be going down in the future as government stimulus spending winds down and the cost of bail outs dissipates, but that is by no means certain. Once people get a taste of government spending they are loathe to give it up. But even if we accept the optimistic projections that deficits will decline there remains the larger, and more dangerous problem of the debt. As long as there are deficits, no matter how small, the debt will keep going up. All of the talk in Washington about reducing the deficit should be considered in light of the larger picture, the debt. It is a waste of time talking about the debt as long as we operating under historical deficits. Even if somehow Washington was able to pass a budget with a surplus, applying that surplus to the debt is a long way from certain. People win office in this country by spending money on their constituents, not by stiff arming them in order to pay off banks and foreign creditors. If you are a politician and you tell grandma she can't have an increase in her social security because the bankers have to be paid you had better prepare yourself for a new line of work.
Congress should take a break. It is not as if a balanced budget were anywhere in reach. Besides, the debt isn't going anywhere. We have two years before the next elections and things are going the democrats' way. Let's just up the limit on the nation's credit card and move on with our lives. There will still be tens of millions of potential hostages when the next budget battle comes up. It is my hope that Congress will take some time to put budgetary politics aside and let financial reality seep in. Unless it does, we will just keep stumbling from one budget crisis to another.
What undid the Soviet Union was that the Kremlin frequently subordinated economics to politics. Domestic policies were commonly crafted for political ends in disregard for financial facts. The Soviet economy was guided by the politburo, not the market. If the politburo decided that more architects were needed or that more of a particular commodity was required, the order went out for more. If a particular sector of the economy was sagging, edicts were issued to shore it up. We know how that worked out. Had the Soviet Union been able to borrow money indefinitely to keep itself afloat, it might never have collapsed, but it couldn't. When the Soviets faced a financial cliff they had no choice but to go headlong over it. We may still do the same. Being a democracy does not make us immune to ideological error and the laws of economics.
Yes, let's take a little time off. But rather than use the time to devise strategy and gin up support for the next battle, let us use the time to bone up on economics and read a little history. If we spend the time wisely, we might yet still come out of this in good shape.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)