Politiska bloggar, nyheter & Views

Av Shawn Bannon | Svara artikel

Scott

Jag är med dig på griskött frågan, men jag har att ta problemet med dig på ett par andra frågor. Först och främst gäller underskottet, kan man inte påstå att amerikaner känner av smärtan när man betänker att viktiga mätningar av ekonomisk hälsa är alla utmärkta. Titta bara på bostadsmarknaden, som har varit rider på en våg av ökande priser eftersom konsumenterna har råd att betala mer. Analytiker har förutspår att priset bubblan skulle brista i över ett år, men det har inte ännu. Och husägaren utgör en större andel av vår befolkning i dag än någon gång sedan denna kurs uppmättes först. Gaspriserna är dubbelt vad de var för bara ett par år sedan, men de är att höga eftersom efterfrågan är att upprätthålla dessa priser. Människor är inte dramatiskt ändra sina körvanor. De är bara att betala mer för gasen.

Och hälsa i ekonomin beror - till stor del - till nedskärningar skattesats från Bushadministrationen och, när det gäller företag är berörda, på statlig nivå. President Bushs skattesänkningar som trädde i kraft 2001, och förutsägbart, har skatteintäkterna ökat - även genom lågkonjunkturen 2002-2003. Detta är precis som det var i början av 1960-talet, då president Kennedy högg skattesatser, och på 1980-talet, då president Reagan gjorde likadant. Skattesatser gå ner. Konsumtion och företagens investeringar gå upp. Företag expandera, arbetstillfällen skapas, och skatt ökade intäkter. Detta är anledningen till pay as you go skattepolitik fungerar inte. Det förnekar effekterna av tillväxten investeringar i ekonomin. Låga skattesatser - på individuell och företagsnivå - resultera i mer rikligt ekonomisk tillväxt och ökade skatteintäkter. Historien bär det ut. Omvänt höjning av skattesatserna båset konsumtion och begränsa möjligheterna för företag att återinvestera vinsterna i sätt att öka tillväxten och skapa arbetstillfällen.

Det är orättvist att diskutera "nedskärningar" i budgetar för utbildning och vissa program rätten eftersom de "delar" bara visas i en jämförelse mellan 2005 och 2004 års budgetar. Men utbildning och Medicare budgetar har luftballong sedan president Bush tillträdde 2001 som en följd av No Child Left Behind lagstiftning och den nya receptbelagda läkemedelsförmånen för seniorer. Senator Specter är långt ifrån basen i denna fråga.

Kan inte döda NASA. För mycket amerikansk innovation inom de senaste 50 åren är ett resultat av NASA forskning. Alltför många av de produkter i våra hem skulle aldrig ha skapats om det inte vore för de första tillämpningarna av den underliggande vetenskap i NASA-program. Kan vi fokusera bättre räckvidd NASA som ett sätt att hålla nere kostnaderna? Ja, och vi kan vinna lite mark. Men varken en större renovering eller en begravning för programmet kommer att leda till långsiktiga fördelarna för vår ekonomi som uppväger kostnaden för att avstå de fördelar vi har skördat och fortsätter att skörda från NASA: s existens.

Gemensam välfärd är felaktigt, och jag tror att du tittar på frågan på fel sätt. Företag absolut inte betala skatt för inkomster på samma sätt som du och jag. Konsumenterna bära bördan av höga bolagsskattesatserna endast i samma mening som våra arbetsgivare passera skattepengar via oss till regeringen. När de får skattelättnader - ofta att flytta till nya städer eller expandera i en viss region - kommuner handlar med ett begränsat antal av skatteintäkter för att skapa arbetstillfällen och ekonomiska tillväxt. Fungerar det? Ibland ja, ibland nej. Men är det gemensam välfärd? Nej, det är en kalkylerad risk som lokala politiker som helt enkelt inte alltid lönar sig.

Slutligen beträffande jordbruksstöd, är din välgjord, och bättre kontroller krävs. Men svaret är inte en subvention program som belönar bara de fattiga bönder som kämpar för att behålla sin lilla verksamhet. Utan dessa subventioner, stora gårdar som faktiskt producerar maten kommer att bli ohållbar och / eller priset på mat kommer att stiga dramatiskt, allvarligt drabbar de fattiga. Så är svaret ett tweak till subventionen program som bara räknar med att skära ut förmåner till de personer som egna "gårdar" som inte ger något mer än subventioner.

Svara på denna särskilda kommentarer

Av Scott Bannon | Svara artikel

Shawn, tack för kommentarerna. För att vara tydlig, jag sammanfattar vad flera republikanerna (främst i angripna omval lopp) har förklarat de senaste dagarna innan mitt skrivande om amerikanernas känsla av smärtan ". Vi måste enas om att vara oense om detta, men för många låg-och mellanstadiet amerikaner klass bältet är redan så strikt som det kan bli, så jag ska stå i linje med republikanska uttalanden.

När det gäller Bushs skatte-sänkningar och kampen för att fortsätta dem, tror jag inte att jag kom ner personligen på båda sidor av frågan i mitt inlägg. Mina kommentarer om detta bara avser att belysa aktuell intern part split inträffar under ekonomiska frågor.

Jag håller inte att det är orättvist att diskutera "nedskärningar" i budgeten för programmen bara för att de "delar" förekommer endast i en jämförelse mellan 2005 och 2004 års budgetar. Om en viss grad av utgifterna för varje program har varit stabil under de senaste tio åren eller bara en, en minskning till att utgifterna är per definition en "cut" och på alla sätt rättvist att diskutera.

Jag få din punkt på NASA och accepterar något. Som jag nämnde jag ett stort fan av NASA, Discovery Channel och banbrytande forskning. Ändå tror jag att den privata sektorns framsteg och innovationer som har förmågan att trumf statligt finansierade forskning inom de flesta områden. Detta är den största (av många) goda argument för ett kapitalistiskt samhälle enligt min mening.

Även om jag skulle föredra NASA inte dö helt, det är sant att en stor summa pengar (miljarder och åter miljarder dollar om året) som spenderas att flyga raketer mot kometer och 4-Wheeling en robot runt Mars yta. Forskningen bakom dessa program är giltig och hederliga, men inte lika prioriterade som vissa andra program när utgifterna måste sänkas.

Det är som att hantera en hushållsbudget på en större skala. Om du inte har råd att uppgradera till den senaste nya gadget-packade, paper-thin, och baseras hemmabiosystem i år, eftersom lilla Timmy behövs hängslen, då du lider genom att titta på The Simpsons den där gamla 60 tums storbilds-för en annan år och uppgradera vid ett senare tillfälle.

Kanske jag ser på gemensam välfärd från fel perspektiv, men kanske inte. Om ägaren (er) Smiths Widgets beslutar de vill ha en hel dollar per widget säljs vinstmarginalen, då förståelse för att de ska betala ca 47% av sin inkomst i skatt innebär att de kan prissätta sina prylar för att ha lite över en dollar och en halv vinstmarginal. Regeringen blir det 47% och Smiths Widgets fickorna fulla dollar per widget sålde de ville.

Uppenbarligen är det inte riktigt så enkelt, men sedan igen i viss mån det verkligen är.

Som sagt, jag fokuserade inte enbart på lokala avtal som erbjuder skattelättnader och raster till företag för att växa jobb för sina regioner. Problemet är på federal nivå liksom och maskerade som fläsk i många fall. Ett utmärkt exempel är ett nyligen Highways lagförslag som har en oerhörd mängd fläsk-baserade gemensam välfärd utbetalningar till exempel 37 miljoner USD att utveckla en gemensam väg i Arkansas som är det viktigaste punkten till sätet för Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Jag är inte säker på exakt 2005 vinst för Wal-Mart, men 2004 noterade på $ 10.3 miljarder dollar. Och medan jag förstår behovet av att ha stora företag som ligger i en gemenskap och att arbeta med dem för att hålla dem i samhället, rapporter jag har sett på detta föreslår trafik problemen inte var så dåligt jämfört med liknande genom-priser. Ändå tvingades skattebetalarna punga ut 37 miljoner USD dollar så att Wal-Marts anställda kan få snabbare tillgång till sin arbetsplats. Detta är en form av gemensam välfärd som finns men är ofta förbisedd.

Om jordbruksstöd, är detta en tuff en. Jag vet att begränsa det till endast en viss procent skulle få negativa konsekvenser för hela jordbruket och börda konsumenterna i slutändan. Jag vet också att massor av pengar spenderas varje år betalar markägare att inte använda sin mark. En snabb sökning på Google visar att det ofta dessa markägare är sport eller annan underhållning stjärnor och rika företagsägare. Inte människor som skulle sköter sitt land ändå, men regeringen kommer att betala dem för att säkerställa detta. Det är en skatt kryphål utnyttjas, det är bortkastade pengar och hela programmet måste ha en ärlig och öppen översyn för att säkerställa att pengarna används på bästa möjliga sätt att hjälpa de mest meriterade kandidaterna.

Svara på denna särskilda kommentarer

Av Shawn Bannon | Svara artikel

Scott

Jag är alltid glad att inleda debatten med er.

Du har rätt att många i GOP delas över utgifter och skattesänkningar. En del i mitt parti har förlorat de återhållsam finanspolitik väljarna förväntar sig av republikanska lagstiftare. Det har förekommit några förmildrande omständigheter som bidrar till den nuvarande situationen, men i slutet av dagen, republikan lagstiftarna behöver göra ett bättre jobb med att kontrollera sig själva när det gäller utgifterna.

Med detta sagt, nej, hade du inte komma ner på ena eller andra sidan om Bushs skattesänkningar. Och jag var inte kritisera er diskussion av dessa skattesänkningar. Snarare var jag beskriver några av fördelarna med dessa skattesänkningar för att förklara varför pay-as-you-go budgetpolitik som du godkänt, inte kommer att innebära en utbyggnad av vår ekonomi på det sätt att behålla de skattesänkningar som kommer.

Det är inget fel med vissa offentliga utgifter - även en hel del offentliga utgifter - om ekonomin växer kraftigt nog att betala de leder underskotten inom rimlig tid. Förhållandet av underskottet till BNP är mycket viktigare än det faktiska underskottet nivå. Så kan du öka upplåning för att betala för viktiga saker som kriget mot terrorism, en begränsad utvidgning av Medicare, omgruppering av vår nationella utbildningspolitik, förbättringar av infrastruktur, etc. Men lagstiftare måste veta var gränsen går mellan vad användningsområden för våra skatte - dollar är försiktiga och nödvändig och de som bara skapa politiskt kapital. Pay-as-you-go finanspolitik fungerar inte (det är ovanligt dåliga i en tid av kris), är inte nödvändig och - faktiskt - hämmar tillväxtpotentialen i ekonomin. Men det betyder inte att republikanerna skulle gärna köra upp fliken heller.

Nu, bara några av de punkter som du gjorde i ditt svar på mina kommentarer:

Det är orättvist att diskutera nedskärningar i utbildning och Medicare budgetar du har eftersom du glömt att sätta dem i sammanhang. De presenteras i det ursprungliga del som tyder på administrativa försummelse - titta på nedskärningar i dessa viktiga projekt medan andra, mindre viktiga eller projekt fläsk är fullt finansierad. Det är det orättvist om er diskussion av nedskärningar. De medel som avsatts till utbildning och Medicare har ökat enormt sedan president Bush tillträdde, främst som svar på behov som skapas av ny lagstiftning och förbättring av förmåner. Även skolsystemen anpassas till nya standarder och Medicare infrastruktur skapades för att ta hänsyn till dessa förändringar, mer pengar behövdes. Men att samma utgifter är inte nödvändigt nu när program är igång, så det är helt lämpligt att minska dessa budgetar.

Tänk om ett litet företag - en järnaffär, kanske. Butiken är måttligt framgångsrik, och omkostnader springa i allmänhet omkring 1 miljon USD per år. (Det är bara ett exempel, jag har ingen aning om vilka de faktiska omkostnaderna för att driva en järnhandel skulle vara.) Så, efter 10 års verksamhet, beslutar ägaren att öppna en andra butik i hela stan. Under detta år, är hans driftskostnader kommer att RAKET. Han måste bygga eller renovera en byggnad, inköp inventering, anställa personal etc. Det skulle kunna kosta honom 5 miljoner dollar för att få sin butik igång, och då han kommer att få högre kostnader i samband med skötseln av andra butik för ett antal år tills det blir lika mycket en del av samhället och lokala ekonomin som sin första butik. I tid, dock till kostnaden köra andra butik bör vara ungefär desamma som kostnaderna för att köra först. Så, fem år senare, hans omkostnader är kanske 2,5 miljoner dollar för en gemensam verksamhet. Nu har hans allmänna budgeten minskat, jämfört med året sedan den andra butiken öppnade, men det betyder inte att han försummar verksamheten, lagring av lägre kvalitet varor eller fusk sina kunder.

Detsamma gäller för de offentliga utgifterna. Alltför ofta, vi tror att en minskning av medel som avsatts för ett speciellt program: en automatisk försämring av det programmet. Och folk som senator Specter slåss för en fortsatt finansiering på samma nivåer eller ökade anslag - hälla skattepengar där de inte används effektivt - vilket innebär att vi måste skära någon annanstans, acceptera ett högre budgetunderskott eller höja skatterna. Vi kan diskutera utbildning finansiera en annan gång, men att hälla mer pengar i klassrummen är inte - på lång sikt - svaret på Amerikas utbildning problemet.

Beträffande NASA, kanske vi behöver bara komma överens att vara oense, för jag tror att du är 100 procent - OK, kanske bara 95 procent - fel här. Som jag skrev i går kväll, ja, jag medger att vissa omprioriteringarnas av projekt och utgifter kan vara nödvändigt, men jag vill faktiskt påstå att NASA handläggarna har gjort ett lovvärt arbete i detta avseende under de senaste åren. De har anpassat sina planer för utforskning av rymden väsentligt mot bakgrund av budgeten och säkerhet.

NASA forskning är viktig, det sporrar till innovation inom den privata sektorn som inte skulle hända något annat då kostnaden skulle bli för höga företagsledare ansvarig för investerare. Detta liknar argumentet många gör till förmån för de federala anslagen till stamcellsforskning. Bortsett från de fördelar som vårt försvar program, fördelarna med NASA forskning i vårt dagliga liv - inklusive, men många långt viktigare än lyxvaror som storbilds-TV - är för många för att offra.

Fråga bara alla som någonsin överlevt en livshotande sjukdom på grund av förbättrad medicinsk förståelse som bygger på NASA vetenskap. Fråga en amputerad som kan köras i dag på grund av ett konstgjort ben konstruerad med metaller och koncept som först utvecklades för NASA ansökan. Fråga någon vars familj flydde en släpvagn hem i Oklahoma strax innan en tornado slog hur viktigt det var att de fick en 14-minuters varning tack vare bättre väder målföljning och en berikad förståelse för klimatet bygger på NASA forskning. För några generationer sedan, skulle de inte ha känt till att tornado förrän de hörde det rippa genom sina grannars hem. Fråga ung kvinna vars liv räddades när hon kunde ringa polisen med sin mobiltelefon från stammen av hennes kidnappare bil om vikten av att telefonen och Global Positioning-teknik polisen använde för att hitta henne. Detta är NASA. Det handlar inte om super-duper storbilds-TV, så trevlig som de är. Jag skulle rekommendera att du kolla Life on Earth del av NASA: s webbplats finns bara lite information om många viktiga avseenden NASA gör världen till en bättre plats. Du hittar den på http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/features/index.html.

Naturligtvis innebär inte detta att vi bör bevilja NASA en obegränsad forskningsbudgeten eller att det inte bör vara lämpliga kontroller på plats för att se över sina utgifter, men jag kommer aldrig gå att NASA utgifterna är besläktad med politiskt motiverade fläsk projekt som är verkliga gissel för vår budget.

Switching frågor, jag är rädd att jag också måste hålla med din "gemensam välfärd" argument. Din widget företag kan inte bara höja priserna för att skapa den önskade marginaler för ett antal skäl, som alla är ett bevis på skönhet kapitalismen. Enkelt uttryckt kan de bara ut vad marknaden kommer att bära. Om de höjer priserna och konsumenter fortsätter att köpa sina produkter, då de var avgiftssystem för lite att börja med. Om de höjer priserna och konsumenter väljer att sluta köpa deras prylar, kommer företaget att sänka sina priser eller avkänning tillfälle, en driftig konkurrent kommer att gå in och sälja en jämförbar produkt för en 75-cent vinstmarginal. I slutet av dagen, fysik konkurrens inneboende kapitalismen kräver att varor kommer att säljas till ett pris som marknaden kan bära, varför kapitalismen är bra för konsumenterna.

Som för Wal-Mart exempel är det inte "gemensam välfärd", och det kanske inte ens vara fläsk. Wal-Mart har vuxit från en liten organisation till en av världens största. Det har på många sätt vuxit ifrån sina hem, så att säga. Nu kan det gå. Det är nog vad du eller jag skulle göra om vi växte våra hem. Men de politiker som företräder medborgarna i Arkansas förstå den oerhörda värde till sina väljare och för ekonomin i sin stat inneboende i linje Wal-Mart rätt var det är. Om bredda en väg förbättrar trafikflödet och även gynnar ekonomin genom att göra platsen mer lämplig plats för Wal-Mart att fortsätta sin verksamhet, är det fullt lämpligt för finansieringen av detta projekt som skall ingå i en motorväg anslag Bill.

Wal-Mart vinster har ingenting att göra med detta argument. De är inte längre direkt ansvarig för att betala för underhållet av vägarna runt deras högkvarter än vad vi som enskilda skattebetalarna är ansvariga att betala för underhåll av gator som vi lever. Ja, var deras vinster enormt. Men så var deras skattebörda. Var utgifterna fläsk - en lagstiftare kasta ett ben till ett företag på hemmaplan? Kanske. Det beror på om projektet verkligen var nödvändigt att förbättra trafikflödet och hålla Wal-Mart högkvarter där. Varken du eller jag har utbildning eller fördjupad kunskap om detaljerna kring denna plats för att avgöra om vägprojektet var nödvändigt. Men även om det inte - även om det var fläsk - det ännu inte var "gemensam välfärd."

Som jag skrev igår, "gemensam välfärd" är ett missvisande. På det stora hela är det egentligen finnas, utom hos de liberaler som inte vill tro det finns alltid en bra anledning att använda skattepengar på ett sätt som skulle gynna storföretagen. Man skulle kunna göra argumentet att vissa statliga räddningsinsatserna, till exempel stödja regeringen gav flygbolag efter 11 september var "gemensam välfärd." Men de är mycket sällsynta tillfällen och inte vad de flesta menar när de använder begreppet.

Vanligtvis är frasen "corporate welfare" som används av människor som förnekar överlägsenhet kapitalismens till andra ekonomiska system. Dessa är människor som tror att allt ska vara lika och att ingen någonsin skulle få vad de anser vara "för mycket" medan andra går utan. Dessa är människor som tror på rättigheter i stället för självförtroende och de tror att regeringens roll är att ge försörjning i stället för möjligheter. De tror att Wal-Mart och andra framgångsrika företag är ond. Och de har uppfunnit begreppet "gemensam välfärd" eftersom de inte tror att framgångsrika organisationer bör tillgodoses på något sätt, form eller form av vår regering. Detta är deras plattform trots att organisationer som Wal-Mart att skapa arbetstillfällen, driva på den ekonomiska tillväxten och bidra till de samhällen där de befinner sig. Dessa liberaler tar verkligen-från-den-rik-och-ge-to-the-fattiga socialister som hellre riva dem som är framgångsrika än berätta för dem som inte är att göra mer av sina möjligheter.

Nu tycker inte jag grym eller känslokalla. Vi som människor borde vara medkännande. Vi borde ta hand om dem som verkligen är missgynnade. Men vi borde göra att fler som grannar och mindre som skattebetalare. Vi borde göra det genom de donationer som vi gör i våra kyrkor och våra medarbetare "fundraising walkathons. Vi borde ge mer av vår egen tid som volontärer. Vi borde uppmuntra vår regering att finansiera jobb-kompetens utbildning för dem som vill göra ett bättre liv för sig själva och sina kära. Vi borde ställa sig bakom regeringens stöd som ger människor en hand upp, inte en hand ut. Men vi måste stå upp mot alla försök att bestraffa dem som har varit framgångsrikt, eftersom "det är inte rättvist" att det finns andra som inte har insett sin potential. Och det är vad liberaler / socialister - de människor som argumenterar mot all användning av skattepengar som skulle gynna ett företag (oberoende av den vinst till samhället och ekonomin) - syftar till att göra. Jag tror inte du är en av dem, så jag vill uppmuntra dig att ompröva denna fråga och användningen av begreppet "gemensam välfärd."

Svara på denna särskilda kommentarer

Av Scott Bannon | Svara artikel

Shawn, glad att jag kan sporra dig i. Jag tycker om vårt civila tillbaka och forths.

Jag skrev inte under på pay-as-you-go budgetpolitik. Jag illustrerade det som den enskilt mest betydelsefulla och underlät-move nyligen gjorts av demokraterna att ta itu utom kontroll utgifterna i Washington. Jag ber om ursäkt om detta inte tydligt framgår i min artikel.

Jag har ingenting emot om farorna med pay-as-you-go regler, de är restriktiva och djupt påverkar till nationen. Vi kanske är oense om när en drastisk nödlösning vore lämpligt att ingjuta, men jag ska låta det vara som en filosofisk skillnad på var att dra budgetposten för döden.

På NASA, som jag har medgett redan förstår jag vad ni menar och inte helt oense. Men balansera en nationell budget är hårt arbete. Det finns en ändlig mängd att gå runt och svåra val måste göras. Kärnpunkten är prioriterade. Ja, har NASA (och fortfarande gör) enorma bidrag till att berika människors liv.

Inte mindre viktigt dock att en lika stor eller större mängd av den amerikanska befolkningen är mat, tak över huvudet, medicin och utbildning för att säkerställa framtida generationer har förutsättningar att fortsätta att utveckla nya och bättre teknik.

Även högt över många andra penning-pit projekt och säkerligen tornar över fjället av griskött avfall faller NASA fortfarande under många väsentliga program och tjänster i första hand också, min ursprungliga poäng var att när vi börjar skära dessa - NASA måste komma framåt i huggkubben linje.

Vi ser gemensam välfärd ur olika perspektiv, bör vi nog lämna det här en sådan. Varken i denna artikel eller någonsin i samtal har jag förklarat ett totalt motstånd mot skatte dollar gynnar verksamheten. Det finns betydande och många områden där statliga stöd till näringslivet är avgörande, både för enskilda företag och samhälle. Direkt efter 11 september 2001, då flygbranschen hade tagit en enorm smäll från attacker jag inte motsatte sig det ursprungliga bail-out "på något sätt, även om jag tyckte vissa industri-modell omstrukturering föreskrifter hade varit klokt att bifoga. I did oppose subsequent bail-out requests because I feel (from my limited outsider knowledge and perspective) that the industry as a whole has huge operational problems (most of which existed pre 9/11) and has yet to address them in an efficient manner. The initial assistance was a deserved hand-up, subsequent requests were for the proverbial hand-outs in my opinion.

Jag har aldrig föreslagit bestraffa ett företag eller en industri som gör rätt för sig. Jag erbjuder mina tidigare artiklar här på PBNV.com om oljeindustrin som exempel. Jag är emot alla försök att införa särskilda skatter på framgång.

I'll stand behind my Wal-Mart example. Was it really corporate welfare? That depends upon how you define welfare I suppose. I define it as government assistance to be used for sustaining and improving one's self (or corporation). Wal-Mart specifically benefited (improved) from this project, so it falls within that definition from my perspective. It's likely that if the road were in a busy commercial area and the widening had benefited a number of businesses instead of just one I would feel differently, that doesn't seem the case from what I found.

As for listing Wal-Mart's profits, it wasn't to suggest that they should have somehow been responsible for paying to widen the roadway themselves, it was to illustrate that there were however, probably more deserving places for that money to go. Assuming that the road widening wasn't immediately essential as reporting suggests.

I don't want to continue on this track much further for fear that some reader may believe I'm just “another liberal attacking Wal-Mart”. I've defended that company in the past against such attacks and only used them as an example here because the example and facts were the first available in a quick search. If similar findings regarding another business had been first I would have used them instead. I almost feel a need to email Lee Scott with a mia coppa.

To go off-topic from the original article here for just a moment, I don't think you are cruel or callous, but I believe it's wrong to make blanket implications that suggest a negative equation of liberals with socialists.

First of all, socialism itself isn't inherently evil as some would believe. It's a system, no more or less, and any evil examples that can be cited–I say can be attributed to the people working the system and not the system itself. The same is true of monarchies, democracies and republics through history. As evidence I offer that socialism has worked well for Catholics and other organized religions for many generations now. At least as well as any system has for other groupings.

Beyond that, there are arguable traits of socialism woven into the founding fabric of our nation. Our Declaration of Independence defines government as being responsible for (and limited to) the security and happiness(read as wellbeing) of the citizens it serves. A collective entity from the population created to handle that which privately or individually can't be accomplished for the common good and rights of all. Basically, it's “everyone, by means of the government, making sure that everyone has at-least this”, with 'this' being the rights we agree upon as sacred to all. That is a moderate usage of true socialistic ideology and was a brilliant application by men who wore knickers and wigs in my opinion.

This doesn't mean to suggest I'd prefer a full or even necessarily more socialist tendency in America, it means that I believe there were trace elements of socialism implied by our founding fathers with an understanding that they could help to achieve the forming of a more perfect union. Sort of a 'too much of anything is bad, but in moderation may be healthy and beneficial' approach.

I often hear conservatives add negative connotations to 'entitlement' programs and noted it in your reply as well. The very fact that the terminology was shifted from social programs to 'entitlements' suggests that a change in public perceptions was desired by those who would oppose them being tax-based and government run. But, as a liberal I see these programs (when structured and managed reasonably) as the government doing half of it's assigned duty–ensuring the wellbeing of the citizens it serves.

Can these programs become wayward albatrosses? Yes, that's why they need to be well formed and have transparent oversights. But, just because they can be corrupted doesn't mean they are by nature corrupt or deserving of any generally negative light being cast upon them.

In viewing government as an entity of the public (as I do), I also see these programs as “taking care of our neighbors”–as you say we ought to. Conversely, when conservatives attack or propose cuts to 'entitlement' programs (with that negative tone attached) while pork and other non-essential wasted spending climbs higher and higher out of control; I view this as government trying to shirk half of it's responsibility while the greedy few fatten their pockets.

There's a gap in our perspectives and beliefs on many issues. That's both okay and good, it keeps me thinking and I hope does the same for you.

Perhaps we can come to a happy agreement on one thing here though; if pork waste were eliminated we could both have all that we wanted and believed was right provided for by government, in addition to further tax rate cuts for all…

Reply to this specific comment

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

Sorry I misread you on pay-as-you-go. I read that portion of your original post as an expression of disappointment that the Dems' effort on that front had failed. A simple matter of miscommunication that I'm glad we've cleared up.

I hope you won't be offended when I say that I think your position on NASA is simply short-sighted. I understand your point about priorities, but you're suggesting that we not adjust the bloated budgets of certain programs until we've slashed the NASA budget because you believe the needs those programs aim to meet are more important than the advances in technology and understanding that result from NASA's efforts. The fact is that it is possible – and a growing number of studies (at least the studies not sponsored by the teachers' unions) suggest – that money is not the problem with our education system and that dumping more money into public education without dramatic reform at the state and local levels is as effective as burning that money. So, where is the federal tax dollar better spent? The issue isn't whether education or the health of senior citizens is more important than NASA research. The issue is how effectively money dedicated to each is used to actually serve those causes. And that is where I think you and many others are missing the boat.

Briefly, regarding “corporate welfare” and Wal-Mart, when you write that Wal-Mart, because of its huge profits, is maybe not as “deserving” as some other causes, you are – in effect – suggesting that government support be denied this tax-paying organization because of its success. I would argue the opposite, that this project was particularly important to the people of Arkansas specifically because Wal-Mart has been so successful. When Wal-Mart does well, jobs are created, tax dollars are generated, and more money is funneled into the community through corporate and employee charitable contributions. You call it “corporate welfare” because you see Wal-Mart as the primary beneficiary. I say it's an infrastructure improvement project that demonstrably supports the economy as well as the local community. I don't think you're a crazy liberal attacking Wal-Mart, but I do think your definition of “corporate welfare” does align more closely than you realize with the views of socialist liberals and that you may be too quick to call government support of businesses like Wal-Mart “corporate welfare” when it is anything but.

Now, speaking of socialist liberals, I didn't equate liberals with socialists. I talked about a specific group of liberals who are also socialists. I do think most liberals have socialist leanings, but that doesn't make all liberals socialists.

Concerning socialism, it is an economic system of bondage and oppression that suppresses innovation, discourages extraordinary effort and has no method for rewarding achievement. It is a gear without teeth, constantly spinning without ever advancing the machine. It has no mechanism by which to adjust to market influences, is easily corrupted and rejects liberty. Because it is so vastly inferior to capitalism, it is doomed to failure.

Socialism does not work well for organized religion. It works, to some degree, among the clergy, but not among the laity. Still, history shows us that socialism has not always worked even among the clergy; the history of the Catholic Church is rife with stories of corruption and abuses of power. Inquisition, anyone? That doesn't make the Catholic Church, as an institution, evil – not at all. But it does demonstrate that socialism is only moderately sustainable even among a limited populace composed of clergy that have given over their worldly desires and committed to one unifying set of beliefs.

I think you're wrong to associate threads of community and union built into our Declaration of Independence with socialism. The Founding Fathers were absolute capitalists, and they worked very hard in the drafting of that document to define only the loosest of formal ties between the colonies so as to preserve the rights of self-determination inherent to individuals and each colony. They set out to limit the role of the federal government to the greatest possible extent, and they explicitly called for the consent of the governed – something no self-respecting socialist would ever do.

You are mistaken when you write that the Declaration proclaims the government's responsibility “for the safety and happiness of the citizens it serves.” What the Declaration says is that the citizenry has the right to form a government “most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” This is a very different thing and a far cry from socialism. It means that the people are responsible for their own safety and happiness but that they have the right to design governmental mechanisms that give them the best opportunity – individually or collectively – to ensure their own safety and happiness. It doesn't preclude them from banning together as neighbors to help the downtrodden, but it also doesn't require them to do so.

You wrote that the Founding Fathers were calling for “a collective entity from the population created to handle that which privately or individually can't be accomplished for the common good and rights of all. Basically, it's 'everyone, by means of the government, making sure that everyone has at-least this,' with 'this' being the rights we agree upon as sacred to all.” That is incorrect. They were declaring their independence from an oppressor who denied them rights that they believed were inalienable, and they were staking claim to their rights as free men to determine for themselves what form of government would offer them – individually and collectively – the best opportunity to realize their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They weren't writing that the government is responsible for granting you these rights; they were writing that the government doesn't have the authority to take these God-given rights away from you. This may seem like a mild distinction to you, but it is the difference between socialism and liberty. It is the difference between communism and capitalism. And it is all the difference in the world.

If you're looking for the introduction of socialism in our political-economic systems, the only place to start is with The New Deal. And that's also where we might begin our discussion of entitlements. The New Deal was a short-sighted answer to the failed economic policies that led to the Great Depression. The result was a bloated bureaucracy and future taxpayer liabilities that we would not be able to afford in the long-term because of the changing demographics of a nation that had long since begun to shift from agrarian economics to manufacturing and industry. Additional entitlement programs enacted under Lyndon Johnson's Great Society plan, while well-intentioned, exacerbated the problem.

These programs became entitlements when people began to depend on them even before they needed them. When people began planning during their working years for the Social Security income they would have during their retirement, Social Security became an entitlement. It was not intended at its inception to play the role in retirees' lives that it does today. Medicare was not supposed to become a senior citizen's only means of securing medical treatment. The original designers, in their short-sightedness, did not adequately plan for the aging of our population and increased life expectancies. And so, we are struggling under the mounting weight of social programs that will soon buckle our knees unless these programs are dramatically reinvented in ways that better align them with America's brand of capitalism and strip away the ties to socialism.

At the end of the day, I think the biggest difference between your views and mine is that you think government should provide for us while I think government should get out of the way so we can provide for ourselves and each other. This is a fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals assume that the poor, the weak and the lost would be left for dead if it were up to conservatives because we wouldn't have nearly the degree of government-provided services that exist today. I disagree because I believe that our capacity for achievement and prosperity is matched only by our generosity and the strength of our communities. The proof? According to the Catalogue for Philanthropy, 28 of the 29 most generous states, defined by the average per capita charitable deduction (how much each person gives to charity), are red states – states that voted for Bush in 04, states where conservatives have the strongest foothold. That's not to say that liberals aren't at all charitable, just that they (as a group) give less to charity because they assume the government will take care of our neighbors' ills. And it's another indication of liberals' desire to shed personal responsibility.

Reply to this specific comment

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Shawn, just a few quick points to clarify. I said there were probably more deserving places for that money to go with regards to the road widening for Wal-Mart. I'd have to twist it like a pretzel to infer “Wal-Mart doesn't deserve assistance because of it's success” from that statement.

I said there were 'better' or more deserving uses for the money. That doesn't translate into Wal-Mart is not deserving of assistance, only was less deserving at that point and under the circumstances.

Your points on socialism with specific examples of failure and corruption are accurate, but as I suggested can be linked directly to the people working the system.

I don't believe socialism is a better method, I was simply stating that it is a concept, like all forms of government, and inherently neutral. Any success or failure, good or evil that comes of it's application is a result of the people within, not the system itself.

You appear to have taken high exception with my suggesting that our founding fathers embraced trace aspects of socialistic ideology. I understand that, a lot of people (conservative and liberals alike) tend to do so. Perhaps it's a lack of emotional attachment to any specific ideology–capitalism, socialism, communism, Any'isms– that prevents me from reacting the same. I have thoughts on what's good and bad about each of these concepts, but no emotional connections to any of them.

Still, to borrow certain elements from any system which would further our ultimate goals seemed 'ahead of their time' to me and was stated in praise of their design.

We simply comprehend the Declaration of Independence differently. This is a long standing wedge in conservative vs. liberal perspectives. Conservatives seem content to reduce government to a corporate sponsor (you yourself have argued in favor and defense of corporate aid from government) with military might.

Liberals (myself included), tend to believe that falls short of the full intention which also includes the ensuring of individuals' wellbeing.

I get that from this line (expanding your own example to add the appropriate context): “..to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them [the governed] shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

When happiness is read as it's synonym, wellbeing, which I believe was the intention since I doubt our founding fathers felt government should pay for cable or lap dances (though if they really wanted to keep me happy or get my vote…)–and interpreting “organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect” as “building a government designed to cause or make so”, then it's clear that ensuring and protecting the wellbeing of citizens [the governed] was indeed intended.

That idea is further supported within the preamble of the constitution as well, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

I don't actually think government should provide all for us, I think we should provide for each other when the needs and means exist. As you say, take care of our neighbors. I just happen to believe the best tool for this is government in many instances due to resources and access. Smaller groups and charities are perfectly suited to certain needs, though often more inclined or predisposed to discriminate upon who receives their support. Government is better suited (by design) to others.

Reply to this specific comment

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

You're still using Wal-Mart's success as a way of determining whether or not it deserves government aid. By assigning a negative “deserve” factor based on Wal-Mart's success – by deciding that someone else is more deserving because you think Wal-Mart has been successful enough that it doesn't deserve aid as much as another taxpayer – you have, indeed, assessed a penalty for that success. Having said that, because the highway improvement project in question is an infrastructure improvement that benefits the local and state economy and, in turn, Wal-Mart, it's like Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven: “Deserve's got nothing to do with it.” One of the responsibilities of our elected representatives is to make the best decisions they can about how to use tax dollars to bring about the greatest benefit to we the governed. You can, from 1,000 miles away, second-guess the need for this road work in Arkansas, but Wal-Mart's success has nothing to do with whether or not the project should have been funded in the manner that you suggest.

Now, regarding your thoughts on socialism, it doesn't fail because of the people in the system. It fails because it was an ill-devised system to begin with. It isn't inherently neutral, as you suggest, because it aims from the outset to take from those who prosper. It retards the socio-economic advancement of those who are ambitious or entrepreneurial while rewarding those whose contributions or productivity are minimal. Intended to transcend human nature, it instead grates against those who are subjugated by the system, destroying souls and breeding corruption.

I do take exception to your argument concerning the Founding Fathers because I am troubled by such a fundamental misunderstanding of our founding documents. More than that, I am troubled by the idea that you – or any American born in this land of opportunity – claim to have no emotional attachment to the system of values that has made the United States the greatest country in the world. No other country offers its citizens as much opportunity. No other economic system has created as much wealth for a people as has American capitalism. Nowhere else in the world would we consider people who carry cell phones and wear Nike shoes to be living in poverty. But here in America, you can drive through the poorest neighborhood at night, and you'll see nearly every apartment window lit by the glow of a color television. Sure, there are poor who struggle here in the United States. There are hard-working Americans who find it difficult to put food on the table for their families. But where else in the world would those same people have the opportunities that they have here to lift themselves above their struggles?

This country, which has provided more opportunity for prosperity than any other, has given you, me and millions of others the chance to make our dreams a reality. But you have no emotional attachment to our particular brands of government, community and commerce? Sadly, too many liberals feel this way. And if conservatives accuse liberals of not being patriots, it's because of this lack of love of country, not because you or people far more liberal than you are critical of the government's policies.

Speaking of conservatives, your assertion that conservatives want to “reduce government to a corporate sponsor,” couldn't be more wrong. And what I've argued is that it is wholly appropriate for government to make infrastructure improvements and other tax-funded investments – with the consent of the governed through the actions of their elected representatives. These government actions are intended to effect the safety and happiness of the governed by creating opportunities for greater prosperity. That is 100 percent in line with the language in our founding documents.

Your substitution of “wellbeing” for “happiness” is a mistake. Jefferson, Adams and the other signers of the Declaration absolutely meant “happiness” in that government should make it possible for you as a citizen to gain employment, own land and accumulate wealth. They were talking about “happiness,” and they wrote “happiness.”

You are trying to rewrite the Declaration to fit your agenda by interpreting plain English that only requires interpretation if you are trying to change the meaning. The reason Jefferson didn't write about a government “designed to cause or make so” the safety and happiness of the citizenry is because that isn't what was intended. The Founding Fathers were adamant that all responsibility and authority remained with the governed, for whom the government is but a tool used to bring about the greatest likelihood of safety and happiness. The language you quoted from the Constitution is all about national security. It has nothing to do with making sure the sick receive taxpayer-funded healthcare or that senior citizens are guaranteed an income in their retirement.

Lastly, regarding your belief that the government is the best channel by which to provide support to those in need, I'm afraid you have it backwards, and we will likely always disagree on that. With few exceptions, government programs represent the most inefficient and ineffective means of delivering social services to our citizens. Bloated administrative organizations waste money. Layers of bureaucracy waste time. Consider that the American Red Cross is far better at mobilizing and providing for the wellbeing of citizens in the wake of a disaster than federal, state and local agencies. Consider that children in private schools score significantly higher on standardized tests than public school students despite the fact that the cost to educate a student in most private schools is about half of what taxpayers pay per student in nearby public schools. Liberals don't seem to mind this inefficiency and waste. In fact, they seem to think that the more you feed the beast, the more it will accomplish. But the evidence doesn't support that.

The simple fact is that private agencies are better organized, better focused, better connected to those they serve and, as a result, better able to provide the support required by our neighbors in need. We should do more to encourage a transfer of responsibility back to individuals and those private organizations, fighting discrimination where it occurs on a case-by-case basis instead of assuming a culture of discrimination. That charge, in my experience, tends to be tossed around too indiscriminately by liberals who simply don't agree with the values espoused by many of those private organizations. Perhaps, instead of pushing for more tax money dedicated to inefficient, ineffective and wasteful government agencies, liberals should dedicate themselves to making a more direct contribution to the wellbeing of those in need by getting involved themselves.

Reply to this specific comment

By Scott Bannon | Reply to article

Shawn, my stating that Wal-Mart was perhaps less deserving in that situation came not from any negative weight placed upon their success, but rather from more demanding needs in other areas. Their success, despite any rush hour traffic problems to date, is evidence that perhaps areas like education–where Arkansas constantly brings up the rear–had a greater need under the circumstances at that point in time. When faced with more needs than there is funding to supply, one must prioritize. I'm not prioritizing against Wal-Mart or any business/program in some bottom-up chopping block approach, but rather from top-down to assess the most demanding. Yes, I do believe that assistance should always go to the most needy to do the most overall good. We'll have to agree to just disagree from that point.

It's wrong to equate a lack of love for capitalism to a lack of patriotism or love for country. My reasons for loving America may differ from yours or anyone else's, but that in no way suggests I love my country any less–just as I don't feel you are any less of a patriot for your reasons.

Capitalism is an economic–or socioeconomic–system, it is not the underlying values of our nation which I do hold emotional connections with. Perhaps you misread my previous comments on this. My lack of attachment is to the structure, not true values such as freedom, compassion, accountability, charity, tolerance and so on. These are the sort of values that exist in America and with which I am most proud of. This doesn't mean that I feel financial opportunities and prosperity aren't of value, nor do I feel anyone who views them as higher values is less patriotic than myself.

We don't all need to hold the same perspectives or reasons in order to share an equal love for our country, and shame on those conservatives you spoke of who believe or would suggest otherwise.

My comments regarding socialism in no way placed a negative light on capitalism. You can argue that one [socialism] isn't all/inherently bad without saying the other [capitalism] isn't better. It isn't an either-or option to me.

I don't believe I'm trying to rewrite the Declaration, I believe it is a fundamental and understandable difference in comprehension that exists between conservatives and liberals. If I were to comprehend it more verbatim as you suggest, then I believe I've been missing some government sponsored lap-dances for quite a long time now and will be writing my republican senators about this tonight.

You're correct that programs and ideas such as national health-care or social security weren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The 'general Welfare' of we the people was, and you can interpret that to apply only to security, however the definition of welfare is a) Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being and b) Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.

Nowhere in there is security or safety mentioned. If I must read the Declaration verbatim and without interpretation then I insist the same of the Constitution. Knowing that the needs and wants of society would evolve with time, the Constitution formed a foundation for future generations to meet them without the founding fathers having to specifically name them individually from some crystal ball.

Why is it that when government makes “infrastructure improvements and other tax-funded investments” that primarily or most directly benefit business it's appropriate and “with the consent of the governed through the actions of their elected representatives”, but when government makes social improvements and other tax-funded investments with the same consent of the governed through the actions of their same elected representatives it's an unfair 'entitlement' of the few paid for by the many?

Again, I have absolutely no objections to government assisting business to become more prosperous–in fact I believe that's a basic responsibility of government. However, that same responsibility exists to the general populace as well and my only objections are when the balance tilts disproportionately.

I agree and said so previously, that private charities are often the best suited outlets for some social needs. Some others, such as the social security program require more oversight and control than could be accomplished with privatization, in my opinion. This doesn't mean I think things have been well managed as is, simply that I believe the best opportunity exists within government management of some programs and that having these fall under government administration is Constitutional.

Reply to this specific comment

By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article

Scott,

You may not think you've assessed Wal-Mart a penalty for its success, but in your original piece, you clearly drew a line between Wal-Mart's profits and whether or not a particular highway improvement project should be funded. Now, having thought more about that, you may not feel that is the way to approach the issue, but I do think your original presentation of the matter is indicative of how many on the left look at similar issues, and it is important to address that mistake.

Having said that, I have to dispute your argument that the politicians have not appropriately prioritized their use of tax dollars because they're funding a highway project while the Arkansas education system continues to fail the children in the state's public schools.

In Arkansas, only 26 percent of 8th graders are proficient or better in reading, and only 22 percent are proficient or better in math. Those numbers are abysmal. So, when you consider that Arkansas taxpayers pay $6,774 per student per year to send their children to school, if you didn't know any better you might think that moving money from the highway project that benefited Wal-Mart to the education budget would be wise. But consider that Alaska, the state that spends the most – $16,665 per student – can boast proficiency ratings of just 27 percent and 29 percent for reading and writing, respectively. Is Alaska an anomaly? No. In the District of Columbia, which spends $16,344 per student, those numbers are just 12 percent and 7 percent. And nationwide, the state-by-state averages are just 29 percent and 28 percent. The problem is with education policy, not education budgets. And without dramatic reform, dumping taxpayer dollars into education is not likely to have near the same positive effect on the state of Arkansas as infrastructure improvements like the highway project we've been discussing in this thread of posts.

Now, I don't want to turn this into a discussion of your patriotism, but I think it is reasonable to question an American's love of the US if rejects any or all of the most basic principles upon which this nation has been built. You wrote a few nights ago that you have no emotional attachment to any ideology. In your most recent post, you wrote that you have no attachment to structure but that you are proud of values – freedom, compassion, accountability, etc. So you like, maybe even love, certain characteristics that make you feel good, but those things are not unique to the United States. You would find some measure of all of those qualities in Canada, the UK and elsewhere in the Western world. What makes the United States different from any other country in the world are our particular structures – our brand of capitalism, our form of representative democracy, the ties between and the borders that separate our states, our systems of laws and justice. If you don't embrace those structures – if you think they are artificial and somehow unimportant – I don't see any shame in asking whether what you love is the United States of America or Western culture in a broader sense.

As far as socialism is concerned, you can strip away everything I've written about the superiority of capitalism, and my argument that socialism is inherently oppressive and doomed to failure because it contradicts human nature still hold.

Now, I don't get this comment you've made (twice) that the establishment by the people of a system of government that creates the greatest likelihood of your safety and happiness somehow equates to government-sponsored lap dances. This is not a guarantee that the government will ensure either your safety or your happiness – whatever happiness means to you. This is simply a proclamation that the governed have the authority to decide for themselves what forms of government and commerce will provide the best opportunities by which they can realize their safety and happiness. In the United States, the governed have chosen to create a unique composite of republicanism and capitalism that have resulted in opportunities for prosperity greater than those experienced by any nation elsewhere in the world. And that prosperity pays for layered measures of security intended to offer the highest possible likelihood of our continued safety. If you are reading the Declaration to mean anything other than this, you should go back and read the writings of some of the men involved in the process of drafting and debating the document in the weeks prior to July 1776.

Concerning the Constitution, the definition you offer for the word welfare is a modern definition, which has changed dramatically with the advent of certain social programs in the 20th century. The word welfare had absolutely nothing to do with financial or other aid provided by the government when the Constitution was drafted. As for health, happiness and good fortune, the language of the Constitution is to promote – not to provide, but to promote – the general welfare. There is absolutely no contradiction between this promotion of the general welfare of the people and what I've written about the creation of government structures designed to bring about the best opportunity for its citizens to prosper.

You've attempted to catch me in a contradiction by insisting upon a strict reading of the Constitution, in essence suggesting that I was guilty of the same kind of rewriting or interpretation that you have done with the Declaration. But there you are wrong. I wrote of security as a concept that summarizes the language in the preamble to the Constitution because it was expedient for me to do so in a commentary that was already very long. But I could have used the verbatim language from the Constitution about insuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defense, and my point would have been exactly the same and every bit as accurate. The difference between our points of view isn'ta matter of interpretation; it's the difference between what our founding documents say and what you'd like them to say.

Now, on to your question about entitlements. I never wrote that entitlement programs created with the consent of the governed are unfair. You are attempting to lump big business with conservatives against the little guy and liberals, I think, but you've got it wrong. Conservatives don't have a problem with entitlements because they're unfair. We have a problem with entitlement programs because they are bad, ill-fated policy that either ultimately keep down the people they're intended to lift up or turn into financial liabilities that – long-term –the country cannot afford.

Unlike you, I do object to government using my tax dollars in order to make businesses more prosperous. However – and this is crucial – I do support tax-funded investments that make the community more prosperous. In other words, I don't favor giving Wal-Mart $25 million in tax dollars so that the company can simply put more inventory on the shelves. But I would support a $25 million tax-funded infrastructure project that enabled Wal-Mart to open a store or two because the result would be the creation of new jobs, secondary business expansion as a result of increased traffic to the Wal-Mart site, increased tax dollar generation through retail sales and wages, etc. This investment is not designed to make Wal-Mart more prosperous. Wal-Mart's increased prosperity is simply a happy byproduct. But the government has no responsibility to ensure Wal-Mart's prosperity or that of any individual taxpayer. Still, individual taxpayers do reap the benefits of opportunities created when government wisely invests tax dollars to make a region more welcoming to businesses like Wal-Mart.

Finally, regarding Social Security, you would be hard pressed to find a program more illustrative of the points I've made in this posting and previously about entitlement programs. Social Security has been poorly managed with little or no care given to the changing demographics that have nearly doomed it to collapse. With every passing year, the gap between the assets available to pay our current liabilities and the assets we'll need to pay our future liabilities increases dramatically. It is happening at an alarming rate, but because we as a nation have come to expect benefits at a certain age that will afford us a certain level of income – because we have adopted a sense of entitlement – and because seniors make up such a significant block of the voting public, liberal politicians have been able to prey on the fears of retirees and those approaching retirement to the point that conservative politicians will not take the difficult but necessary steps to correct the program's major problems. Sooner or later, Americans are going to have to come to grips with the reality that an increase in the retirement age in line with longer life expectancy and a significantly slower rate of benefit increases – if not benefit reductions – will be necessary just to maintain the solvency of the program for a period of time. Then, if we still refuse to change the way we think about retirement security, dramatic tax increases will be necessary to avoid a complete Social Security meltdown. You may not like the idea of Social Security privatization, in any form, for any number of reasons. But you can bet that if we don't institute some form of mandated private retirement savings similar to President Bush's proposed personal investment accounts – if we don't make a large-scale shift from Social Security in its current form to a system for retirement security built on personal savings – a lot of Americans alive today will never see a dime of Social Security benefits regardless of how long they live.

When it was introduced, Social Security was not intended to become the primary source of a person's income after retirement. It was meant to encourage retirement planning and savings, and it was an attempt to help those who couldn't put even the most meager meal on the table. Those were desperate times, and the intentions were honorable. But, as always happens with government programs that spend taxpayer money, Social Security became a political football and spiraled out of control. If you, as a politician, fought to have benefits increased, you looked like a hero to your senior constituents. Never mind the future consequences of that increase. If the administration of the program is inefficient and wasteful, who even knows? And who is going to care enough to fix it? After all, those are tax dollars being wasted, not real dollars. Private institutions do not operate like that, but government organizations too often do. That is why Social Security was an ill-fated program from the day it was conceived. That is why entitlement programs, as a rule, are bad long-term public policy.

Reply to this specific comment