I’ve written several times about the need to reduce the size of government and the amount it wastes on non-productive expenditures. It’s a huge problem . . . and the biggest problem of all is that virtually no politicians (with a few honorable exceptions, of course) are willing to stick their necks out and speak the truth to the American people.
That truth is very simple: the United States of America is broke. We simply don’t have enough money in our national budget to continue to pay entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and welfare programs at their current level (never mind the growth that they’re guaranteed under current legislation, which indexes many payments to the rate of inflation). The so-called ‘Social Security trust fund’ doesn’t exist. Instead, politicians (from both major parties) have looted Social Security receipts as they came in, applying them to other Government programs, and leaving only a series of IOU’s in the Social Security kitty. Now that Social Security payments exceed inflows, those IOU’s are coming due, and there’s no money in the general treasury to pay for them. That means we’re going to have to devote an inordinate share of general taxation income, and a huge amount of borrowed money, to pay the benefits promised by these programs – money we don’t have to spare.
Trouble is, many of our current politicians are the same people who looted Social Security in the past. They daren’t own up to what they’ve done. They know that if they tell the American people what they’ve done, and the now-inevitable consequences of their actions, they haven’t a hope of re-election . . . and they’re addicted to power and the privileges of their positions. They’ll cling to them at all costs, even if it means going on lying to those who elect them. Just look at Barney Frank and his shenanigans in Massachusetts as he tries to evade responsibility for the fiscal disaster at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He’s the one who insisted that there was nothing wrong, that attempts to rein in those organizations were ‘racist’ – but now he’s ducking and diving to avoid accepting any blame for the consequences of his actions.
John Stossel put it rather well in a recent article.
All that spending is taken from your and my pockets — some in taxes, much in sneakier ways like government borrowing. The national debt — now $13 trillion — simply represents future taxes or the erosion of the dollar.
Yet progressives want us to pay more. One woman activist told our camera, “It costs to live in a civilized society, and we all need to pay our fair share.”
Our “fair share” sounds good. Progressives say taking from the rich to help the poor is simply fair.
I put that to Arthur Brooks, who heads the American Enterprise Institute.
“No, the fairest system is the one that rewards the makers in society as opposed to rewarding the takers in society.”
Brooks wrote “The Battle,” which argues that the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape our future.
“The way that our culture is moving now is toward more redistribution, toward more progressive taxation, exempting more people from paying anything, and loading more of the taxes onto the very top earners in our society.”
But it seems “kind” to take it away from wealthier people and give it to those who need it more.
“Actually, it’s not,” Brooks says. “The government does not create wealth. It uses wealth that’s been created by the private sector.”
He warns that “Americans are in open rebellion today because the government is threatening to take us from a maker nation into taker nation status.”
Americans in “open rebellion”? I’m skeptical. Handouts create fierce constituencies. The tea party movement is wonderful, but it takes strength to say no to government freebies. When I’ve said to tea partiers, “We should cut Medicare, eliminate agriculture subsidies, kill entire federal agencies,” the enthusiasm usually fades from their eyes.
I hope that I am wrong and Brooks is right.
There’s more at the link.
Who’s going to have the guts to stand up and tell the American people, loud and clear, that their expectations concerning Social Security, Medicare and welfare cannot and will not be fulfilled? And how many of the American people will be prepared to face reality and ‘bite the bullet’, accepting the facts of the situation, rather than scream blue murder and vote for anyone who promises to drive this country further into bankruptcy in order to pay them what they want?
Robert A. Heinlein, speaking through his fictional character Lazarus Long, put it very succinctly.
“Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader–the barbarians enter Rome.”
Amen! Let’s not forget, either, the warning of Alexis de Tocqueville, who spoke of democracy in this country more than a century and a half ago. This is what happens when government gets too big:
“After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the government then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence: it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
Amen once more! Double Amen! And today, will the American people have the guts to accept that the shepherd’s got too big for his boots, and be willing to stand on their own two feet, and do without his largesse – even if it costs them personally?
Peter
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your logic, Peter. When you say "And today, will the American people have the guts to accept that the shepherd's got too big for his boots, and be willing to stand on their own two feet, and do without his largesse – even if it costs them personally?" Do you mean those of us who are just starting to recoup the debt owed us after half a century of contributing the maximum Social security taxes required by law, should we just forgive that debt ("IOU" in your parlance) and walk away?
Leatherneck
Leatherneck, the problem is that although the debt owed to us is very real, and undeniable, there's no money to pay it. That's the stark reality facing us. We can insist that the debt be paid – which means that the financial burden on the government remains undiminished, and must be covered by taxing our children and/or borrowing (which lays the repayment burden on their shoulders) – or we can accept that we won't be repaid what we're owed. That being the case, if we accept a lower amount, we can at least make the burden on our children somewhat less.
The latter solution is anything but fair, and it'll result in real financial hardship for some – but what's the alternative? Financial hardship for everybody?
I don't have the answer, but one thing's for sure: our government can't afford, on present income, to pay out what was promised.
Peter, I had not heard of Alexis de Tocqueville until I read this. That was spectacular!
Anonymous? I'm sorry if you are drawing Social Security right now. You will no recoup your debt. It's painful to hear it, but that fact will not change whether you stop collecting now or 10 or 20 years from now. I, on the other hand, will continue to pay in to pay for yours (since the money you contributed got spent long before your checks started coming in), and when my time comes the till will be long empty. I have a hard time feeling bad for folks – disabled, elderly, and retired alike – knowing that, God willing, one day I will be elderly and retired and be able to look back at the thousands and thousands of dollars that got flushed down the toilet. Heaven forbid I become disabled along the way.
tweaker
I understand your frustration Leatherneck, however, the reality that is facing us today is that Social Security is a joke. There is no money left to pay those people like yourselves who have worked and contributed for the last half century. The only people who have any guarantee of retirement at this point are the ones who have set it aside on their own. I'm just thankful enough to have learned this fact at the young age of 27 so that I can be aware that there won't be anything left for me after I work for 50 years as well. It's up to my family to set aside now so that we aren't working ourselves to death when we're 75 years old.
I do not consider myself wise enough to suggest an answer to the problem of making sure those who have paid in to Social Un-Security for all of their adult lives receive their due. I will leave that to those who much more fiscally seasoned than myself.
Thank you all for your responses to what I posted.
When it becomes "Either you or your children and grandchildren will get screwed," of course I would step in and spare them that. Because of a fair amount of frugality, I have a bit of a cushion and giving up my SS pension–i.e., voluntarily and unilaterally surrendering that which is due me under the terms of the contract–would not impoverish me. Many, many of my peers are not so fortunate, and are guilty of only believing the social contract was a valid one made in good faith. Nothing, of course, could be farther from the truth, since we're dealing with that rotten corrupt species of vermin we call "Politician."
But why should I not be righteously angry and sign on for revolution by whatever means offer the best chance of succeeding?
Leatherneck
Why should you not be angry, indeed? Your anger is justified. You're also in the fortunate position of being able to cope without Social Security or Medicare – unlike many of us (including yours truly), who will struggle without those resources.
The only way I can see to pay out something equitable to those who've paid into the system for so long is to abolish all Federal government departments that are demonstrably a waste of money (e.g. Education, Energy, etc.); cut back on entitlement programs for those who contribute nothing to the system (e.g. Welfare, etc.); and sequester all Social Security income so that it can be used for its intended purpose, rather than diverted to other budgetary requirements. If all of those steps were taken now, I daresay something between 50% and 80% of promised Social Security and Medicare benefits could still be paid. If those steps (all of them) are not taken now . . . there's no chance whatsoever of meeting even that reduced standard.
I'll gladly join you in providing (and tallying on to) sufficient rope to deal with those politicians who've 'wasted (our) substance on (their) riotous living', to paraphrase Scripture.
Sometimes you just gotta take one of the old songs, and change the words so they make more sense …
There was one way to deal with the old empire's ills:
no deus ex machina, no magic pills;
when the kings of the East came collecting their bills
and it's you they said had to be payin',
you just had to say bleep it and head for the hills.
Now the times, they are a-changin'.
Come all of you boomers so newly for hire,
plead your case to the ones you consented to sire
where you probably thought you had come to retire,
but now all of your stocks and your savin's,
they won't even fuel a half decent fire,
for the times, they are a-changin'.
Come all of you formerly suburban pr***s–
you practitioners of arcane book-cooking tricks
and kiddy league soccer cutthroat politics!
If it's shelter and food that you're cravin',
start by feigning non-hatred for a few of us hicks,
for the times, they are a-changin'.
Come all of you city folk, face a few facts:
The grid is down hard, and it ain't coming back,
and your cannibal neighbours are running in packs.
This could be a good time to start prayin'.
You'll be long pig for sure if you're not making tracks,
for the times, they are a-changin'.
Come all of you goons with your weird plastic guns
in search of your own little kingdom to run.
Maybe back in your old 'hood that's how it was done,
but that ain't the game that we're playin'.
Hope a faceful of buckshot's your idea of fun,
for the times, they are a-changin'.
********************************************
So, yeah. If there's a bright side, perhaps it's the likelihood that our political and technical sophistication will have allowed us to accomplish in four generations what took the Roman empire four centuries.
BTW, lest anyone get the wrong idea and take any of the above too literally: I've got a couple of those 'weird plastic guns' myself, and I'm neither a goon nor in search of my own little kingdom. (Now, a duchy? That's negotiable.)