The Emperor's New Hole
Charles G. Koch lays out where we're at in the WSJ:
In spite of looming bankruptcy, President Obama and many in Congress have tiptoed around the issue of overspending by suggesting relatively minor cuts in mostly discretionary items. There have been few serious proposals for necessary cuts in military and entitlement programs, even though these account for about three-fourths of all federal spending.Yes, some House leaders have suggested cutting spending to 2008 levels. But getting back to a balanced budget would mean a return to at least 2003 spending levels--and would still leave us with the problem of paying off our enormous debts.
Federal data indicate how urgently we need reform: The unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already exceed $106 trillion. That's well over $300,000 for every man, woman and child in America (and exceeds the combined value of every U.S. bank account, stock certificate, building and piece of personal or public property).
Are you terrified? I'm terrified. If you aren't terrified, why aren't you terrified?
Where's all that money going? Damian Paletta writes in the WSJ of billions and billions of government bloat (and obvious overregulation):
The U.S. government has 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws, more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless and 80 programs for economic development.
The piece goes on and on and on about duplicated efforts and funding. It's just sickening.
Oh, and before you start pointing the finger at me for being a heartless Grinch; as Bastiat said, just because we're opposed to government paying for something doesn't mean we're opposed to it being done at all:
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." -- Frédéric Bastiat (The Law)
I personally help a homeless guy, and speak at a high school to help kids develop themselves, and in my immediate family, my little sister makes sandwiches and takes walks around San Francisco to give them (and probably botulism!) to the homeless; mainly homeless vets. We do these things for free, because we feel we should, not because we are on salary from the government.
Anyone in Washington who really understands the magnitude of the problem and the extent to which the 75% of the budget that is "non-discretionary" cannot be touched, understands that someday the government will default on the debt or declare bankruptcy -- with all that will mean. They are just cynically betting that it happens on someone else's watch.
cpabroker at March 2, 2011 4:19 AM
Just taking Paletta's list:
Of course, we can slash all of those (and we should) and still be deep, deep in the hole. It's time to stop digging. We need a leader with the guts to step up to the plate, tell it like it is, and to ram through cuts to the military and to all entitlement programs.
The chances of such a thing happening are zero. The only question left is: when will the economic zombie that is the US government finally collapse into a stinking heap? It may not be for another 20 years. It may also be next month. Whichever: if you are under 60 and living in the US, you will almost certainly get to live through "interesting times".
a_random_guy at March 2, 2011 5:14 AM
Anyone in Washington who does not propose cuts to entitlements is not serious about getting our finances under control.
Anyone in Washington who proposes cuts to entitlements is not serious about getting re-elected.
Pirate Jo at March 2, 2011 6:40 AM
Prior to the federal government deciding that it had to be in charge of everything, the state of Pennsylvania was the national leader in food safety standards, and most other states accepted Pennsylvania's standards. I remember many food items in the 1960s having the statement "Reg. Penna. Dept of Agriculture" on the packaging, meaning that the manufacturer had been inspected by Pennsylvania inspectors and was certified to meet their standards; many other states accepted that as sufficient for the product to be sold in their state. I only recall one major food safety scare from that period, and it was a botulism scare involving some imported canned soup, around 1970.
(BTW, Amy, it's my understanding that the botulism bacteria only grows in an anaerobic environment. So at least from that standpoint, I don't think you have to worry about your sister's sandwiches.)
Cousin Dave at March 2, 2011 8:00 AM
it's my understanding that the botulism bacteria only grows in an anaerobic environment.
Depends on what is on the sandwich. Yes, botulism only grows in an anaerobic environment, but what it leaves behind after the can is opened (the toxin) is what's deadly. So if you have tuna or chicken on the sandwiches, for example, that is improperly canned, those who eat them may have a problem. (This is unlikely if Sis is using commercially-canned tuna or chicken.)
If, however, the sandwiches sit around for a while at room temperature, the possibility of salmonella grows by the minute.
By the way, I realize that's not what your blogpost is about at all, but I just want to clear up something that might be a bit confusing.
gharkness at March 2, 2011 9:34 AM
Anyone in Washington who does not propose cuts to entitlements is not serious about getting our finances under control.
Anyone in Washington who proposes cuts to entitlements is not serious about getting re-elected.
Pirate Jo nails it. It would be a good idea to address spending related to redundant, wasteful Federal bureaucracies, but even cutting those programs entirely won't address the problem of deficits even in the short run. Social Security, Medicare and Defense are the biggest sources of the deficit, but the political price of serious cuts to any of these is sufficiently high that few politicians are willing to propose them. A real test of the new Tea Party members of Congress will be if one of them offers a plan to set these programs on a more sustainable path.
Christopher at March 2, 2011 9:46 AM
The Tea Party is full of people who want to keep receiving their Soc. Sec. and Medicare. We'll be lucky if this happens, Christopher.
mpetrie98 at March 2, 2011 10:06 PM
The Tea Party is full of people who want to keep receiving their Soc. Sec. and Medicare.
And those whom the money has been sucked out of for years and never expect to see SS.
I'm about 20 years out -- I am making the most money I have in my life. The taxes are about a 30% of my income.
What entitles anyone to a third of my labor?
The question is now what the collapse will look like when it comes.
Will it look like Mad Max, the soup lines and dust bowl in the 1930's, or something in between.
Jim P. at March 2, 2011 10:35 PM
Leave a comment