As a Nation who are we? Have we become a population of sheep to be herded by so many media sheep dogs doing the bidding of their political masters, or have we always been sheep? Are we so dulled by life that it is easier for us to buy lock, stock and barrel the rhetoric of the sound bite politicians who don’t debate, but just posture?
I am not sure what is right for America’s future but I am pretty sure that it will not be found by maintaining the status quo. On one side we have a party that accuses the other of protecting the rich, while at the same time they raise campaign funds from their rich supporters in entertainment and the progressive cities of the Northeast. It seems rather two-faced to have their spokespeople out saying the problems can all be fixed if we just make the rich, on those who own private jets, give us all their money and grow the government so it can redistribute that money to the needy, while raising millions of dollars to campaign on this socialist concept. Is a larger government more likely to balance the federal budget? Is there anything in history to show that is likely to happen? Did the Soviet Union operate with all the wealth of the nation going to all the people, or did all the wealth of the people go to a few politically strong party members and the average person just survived waiting for the next handout?
The other party doesn’t have much to crow about either. When given the opportunities to do the right thing and make this government a pay as you go proposition the party allowed the government to spent more than they took in. In the 1980’s when Reagan promised to shrink the government we grew instead. He continued to spend more than we had, at a rate that would have made his predecessors blush. When we were attacked by Muslim terrorists on 9/ll and we had almost universal support to fight back, did we raise taxes to fund the military or did we mortgage our future to pay for two wars by spending more on defense then we could pay for with a balanced budget? Just like in the 1960’s and 70’s the government grew without the funding to sustain it.
So, what are the real, fundamental questions we need to come to grips with? My experiences have shown that really smart people, and people who think themselves to be really smart, can capture them into complex algorithms and formulas, postulating equally complex and mind-boggling theorems and solutions. Things that are so complex, only the experts can understand them and we will all be made to feel that our future can only be decided by those superior members of the ruling and intellectual elite. But I think this is pure BS. The issues we face are complex, the solutions may be complex, but to understand the basic issues are not, and can be set into simple language so most people can understand and vote on them.
The first question is where does wealth come from? Does the government create wealth, or is something else the engine? Those who argue that the rich owe us their wealth believe it is finite and property of government, and by implication them. This has been the mantra for socialism and communism since Karl Marx. Experience in the free market world suggests that wealth is not finite and finds its way to those who have the courage and commitment to pursue it. There is potential morality issue with some of those who pursue wealth to the detriment of others, but last time I checked our Government is only marginally involved in setting the moral standards of its citizens, and the constitution and its amendments only serve to affirm this. How you answer this question is the foundation for everything else.
Next, what are the jobs only the federal government can do and what are the priorities for doing them? This is really the heart of the debate between the two parties right now. Since the great depression the US Government has had a social welfare program called Social Security. When Congress and the President established this it was assumed it would be a pay as you go proposition where more people paying in would be able to pay for the care of the elderly. Unfortunately Congress has a short memory and has routinely raided the SS trust fund to pay immediate bills they find better for their personal causes. Is that social program the number one job of the federal government? If it is then everything comes second and we must fund its survival. Defense goes, interstate roads go, air transportation goes, environmental protection, etc. Since this isn’t covered in the Constitution the founding fathers didn’t envision a government that would pay for a comfortable retirement for its seniors. Spend a few moments outlining what, if it were you, would be the top to bottom priorities you want to pay for. Then ask yourself – should every job on the list be paid for? This is critical to the next question.
Finally, who is best equipped to spend your money, you or your government? If the government is supposed to do everything for everyone then are you prepared to pay everything for it? If everyone gives his or her money to the government what is an individual's incentive to make more money? This was the problem with the Soviet Union, no incentive to excel. Why work if the government will meet your every need?
1 comment:
I like the question at the beginning, "Are we so dulled by life...?" I often think that the answer is yes. But there are too many examples to the contrary for me to slip into cynicism. What one party is doing in Washington is deeply wrong. In a just world they would be severely punished. Perhaps that won't happen, but maybe they'll at least be overcome. The question is, will the other party have the courage to lead in the face of withering fire, to explain in the face of spitting journalists, to walk through difficult terrain to meet the objective we so desperately need? That is open for question. But if there is that courage, then I believe that big changes will come and we will be proud.
Post a Comment