Back in April of this year I presented my original discussion on “The Trouble With Big” and, at that time, I indicated that I planned to return to the subject at a later date to more fully discuss big government. The reason I put off this discussion for some four months wasn’t because I felt it was of little interest and importance but rather because it is of such critical importance and I needed sufficient time to accumulate the relevant facts to support what I am about to say.
Throughout history, a general trend has been that governments tend to grow with time, regardless of what form of government it is or who is in control. The reason for this is that governments are not inanimate entities but rather are groups of humans who have an inherent interest in expanding their influence. The basic function of government is to guide and manage societies. As such, governments or more specifically those people who comprise the government, have a degree of power over the governed. From my previous discussion of human nature, you may recall that it was suggested that the most basic of all biologic drives is that of survival. Survival above all else provides the motivation for human activity as well as the activity of all other life forms. This motivation is expressed in humans through behavior that allows them to acquire things which enhance survival. Food and shelter are obvious. However, even more basic in our society is wealth and power. If we have sufficient wealth and power, we can acquire most anything we might need to enhance survival. Thus, for people in government, winning the next election is synonymous with survival and the more influence and power one has, the easier it will be to win the next election. On the other hand, in totalitarian states, those governing have acquired enough power that they no longer need to risk elections, they simply demand continued control.
The above scenario suggests why, throughout history, countries have followed a rather predictable life cycle characterized by build up toward greatness (climbing to the top of the hill) and eventually followed by decline as they are replaced by a new “king of the hill”. Archeologists have uncovered a number of empires of the ancient world such as the Mayans and the Incas, which apparently achieved remarkable advancements in science, math and social structure. All experienced a “golden age” only to be followed by decline and, in some cases, total extinction. In more recent history, Greece, the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire and the British Empire all followed similar life cycles. In most if not all of these cases, the build up was characterized by strong individual determination, ingenuity and hard work. Once the society achieved the pinnacle of success, people invariably fell into a period of complacency when they rested on their laurels and the achievements of former generations. In such an atmosphere, young people as well as the less industrious begin to believe that all the benefits of their advanced society are their birthright and have little appreciation for the hard work of earlier generations in creating their utopia. In such situations large segments of the population can become increasingly complacent and fall easy prey to politicians who offer them endless entitlements in exchange for their votes. We are currently seeing this unfold in the U.S. An enormous, snowballing, bureaucracy already exists. Along with the willing assistance of elected politicians, continued growth of government is all but guaranteed as a result of feeding the benefit hungry populace more and more but, unfortunately, at the expense of future generations.
Consider the following information documented by Mark Steyn in his recent New York Times Bestselling book, “After America”:
The 111th Congress (2009-2011) ran up more debt than the first one hundred Congresses (1789-1989) combined.1
The Obama administration took the average Bush deficit for the years 2001-2008 and doubled it, all the way to 2020.2
In 2010, about half our debt was owned by foreigners, and somewhere over a quarter of that was held by the Chinese (officially). 3 By 2015 or so, the People’s Liberation Army of China, which is the largest employer on the planet, will be entirely funded by U.S. taxpayers.
By 2020, the government will be paying between 15 and 20 percent of its revenues in debt interest.4
The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) numbers foresee net interest payments rising from 9 percent of revenues to 36 percent in 2030, then to 58 percent in 2040, and up to 85 percent in 2050.5
According to CBO projections, by 2055 interest payments on the debt will exceed federal revenues.4
A very sad picture of a once great nation emerges in 2055 if the CBO projections are correct. The U.S. would be reduced to a bankrupt, weak, debtor nation. We would not be able to meet the interest payments on our debt much less fund any federal programs – Social Security, Medicare, disaster relief, etc. nor would we be able to mount any significant military effort in our defense. Given such a scenario, is it reasonable to expect that China or any other foreign country would forgive our debt or otherwise bail us out?
This is the most critical issue that the American people need to face and we can’t depend on help from the politician’s (of either party). As I pointed out in “A Path To The Gold” and in several more recent “Stuart’s Thoughts”, in spite of what the politicians say, they are, first and foremost, out for themselves. Prior to the 2008 elections, I expressed the opinion that Barack Obama was a “pied piper” charming people with his rhetoric of “hope and change” while soft peddling his true ideological agenda of dragging the U.S. into socialism. His actions and selective leadership leave no doubt in my mind that this assessment was correct.
I stress again that I am neither a conservative nor a liberal but rather an unlabeled individual who prefers to address issues from a rational perspective rather than a political ideology. I see this enormous, out-of-control, national debt as the most serious problem our country has ever faced. It may not have the instantaneous impact of a Pearl Harbor or a 2011 attack but it is on a fast track to destroy our nation.
In applying “probabilistic rationalism”, we need to establish a clear plan to effectively address the issue. In my view, our goal must be to immediately, if not sooner, halt the growth of the federal debt. In order to do that, the people of the U.S. must insist that our government operate on a balanced budget now, not beginning in 2014 or some other year in the future. We need to insist that congress draft a balanced budget amendment that will require them to exercise this essential level of fiscal responsibility. Provisions could be included for large, unexpected expenses much like each of us do with respect to our personal household budgets. It should be made clear that the people will no longer stand for deficit spending or increases in the federal debt. In fact, we need to put in place additional plans for eventually paying down our debt to more manageable levels.
The tiny spending cuts agreed to when the debt limit was recently raised won’t cut it. They are far too little and too far off in the future. We need to demand immediate bold action by our leaders before irreparable damage is done. Remember, we the people are the employers and the elected officials, including the President and Congress, are our employees. It’s time they shape up and do the job we expect of them. Dragging our country down to third world status is not the direction we want to go. The so-called “super committee” idea is almost certainly headed for political spin and little substance. The entire Congress should be called into session and charged with the responsibility for coming up with a balanced budget and passing a balanced budget amendment. This will, no doubt, require serious tax reform, serious reform of the large entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare/Obamacare, and of great importance, significant shrinking of our bloated federal government. We’ve recently heard of billions of dollars of waste due to duplicate federal programs, superfluous agencies and corrupt or unethical diversion of funds at many levels. Congress should give high priority to solving these kinds of problems.
The question of how big our federal government should be depends on how much we wish it to do for us. The most conservative would say only the essentials such as national defense thus requiring a relatively small government, while the most liberal would prefer a ”nanny state” where a necessarily large government protects us from all of life’s potential hardships. I plan to address this question in a future article but will only hint at this time that rationalism will again prevail.
Notes:
1. Terrence P. Jeffrey, CNSNews.com, 12/27/2010.
2. Brian Riedl, The Heritage Foundation, 2/11/2009.
3. U.S. Treasury, 3/15/2011
4. CBO Report, June, 2010
5. Niall Ferguson, The Australian
No comments:
Post a Comment