In 1910, government spending accounted for 8% of the U.S. economy. Government spending for 2010 will be 48.48% of the U.S. GDP. That is the highest it has been since 1945 when it was 52.9% of the GDP. In 1945, the U.S. was fighting a world war. After the war, government spending dropped dramatically to 7.3% in 1948. It is extraordinarily unlikely government spending today will drop anytime soon. Even if it does, it will not drop significantly. Unlike in the 1940's, the U.S. is not fighting a world war. It is not even fighting a cold war. Counting the War on Terror, the 2010, defense spending as a percentage of the GDP in 2010 was 13%. The defense department could be abolished and the U.S. would still be in the red by almost $1 trillion
Government spending as a percentage of the GDP has risen over the last two years from 37.12% to 44.48%. That money was spent to prop up the economy and increase the size of government. According to the GPO, in 2012 the gross federal debt will be 100.6% of the GDP. The good news is that percentage is expected to drop to only 99.8%by 2014. If the federal government can exercise some fiscal restraint, that .2% can be used to start paying down the debt. At least it would be a good gesture.
What makes this grim news all the more grim is the extent to which the U.S. is dependent on the federal government. More than ever before the economy, and the public, are dependent on the federal government for their well being. Under the Obama administration, millions of Americans now rely upon government for their cars, their houses, their jobs, and their health care. Whole industries are being supported by Washington. If the federal government collapses under the weight of the growing national debt, it will take the nation down with it.
It didn't have to be this way. The federal government, as it was designed by the Framers, was to be a small and limited thing. It was created to do only those few things that the states could not do for themselves, e.g. provide for the defense of the nation, print money, and oversee trade. Neither the states nor their citizens relied upon Washington for their survival. For most of the nation, the federal government was something heard of but not seen or felt. There was little Washington could do to affect the lives or livelihoods of citizens short of starting a war. Indeed, Washington could have sunk into the swamp it was built on and most Americans would not have felt its loss.
The federal government began growing the day after the Constitution was signed, but it was not until the 20th century that it fully hit its stride. Since the New Deal of the 1930's, the federal government has expanded at a relentless pace. It is now the largest and single most powerful force in American life. There is no one and nothing outside its influence and grasp. There is no organization, institution or industry beyond its reach. Virtually nothing can be built, bought or sold without the government's approval or involvement. The government's move into health care was simply part of a long tradition of government expansion. Many will not rest until the federal government has filled every nook and cranny of American life. The government will have to keep expanding to meet the restless ambitions of those who would change the world.
America's fate is now tied to the federal government. Federalism was once a source of strength in the U.S., like bulkheads in a ship. That is no longer so. Those bulkheads that have not been removed have been weakened. We are now sailing like the Titanic. As large, luxurious and powerful as the ship may be, one iceberg can threaten to sink it. With the fiscal recklessness in Washington, we are steering straight for the icebergs.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Other Costs of Immigration
Most of the debate concerning immigration today revolves around concrete and quantitative matters such as demographics, statistics, and economic analyses. These are easy to identify and measure. But there are other costs to immigration that are usually ignored when not evaded: the social and psychological costs of immigration. The psychological dislocation and social anomie that results from rapidly changing demographics is a subject rarely, if ever discussed. When it is discussed, it is most often treated as an abstract social phenomenon of interest to some and concern to others. When it emerges from the public, it is usually dismissed as backwardness or condemned as racism or ignorance. This mistake is a cause of much of the bitterness and condescension on display over immigration reform.
Coined by social theorist Emile Dirkheim in the 1950s, anomie is the condition of alienation caused by the disintegration of social codes. When the common mores and social codes of society begin to erode, the individual starts to lose his bearings. Things that he has taken for granted and values and customs that he has always relied upon as guides begin to disappear, and with them his comfort in the orderliness and predictability of his life. Such disorientation is commonly sneered at by advocates of social change as rooted in fear and ignorance or predicated upon simple routine and habit: shortcomings to be overcome in the new order. They feel it is the task of the indiviual to keep pace with society.
Immigration is almost always discussed in terms of numbers, costs and benefits. Any movement beyond the numbers is viewed suspiciously: as if beyond numbers lies only fear, emotion, and racism. But social disorientation caused by large and swift changes in demographics is a very real phenomenon. It is not a product of economic calculation as many on the right would have us believe. Nor is it a phantom or a product of ignorance and hate as many on the left would have us believe. It is a human response. It is human nature. It is very real.
Many on the Right believe that most things can and should be reduced to economic costs and benefits. Immigration is evaluated in terms of how it affects the economy. Where it is determined to benefit the economy, it is embraced. Opposition is viewed as ignorance and short sightedness. It is to be overcome through enlightening the public as to its self interest. They believe immigration is good for the economy. What is good for the economy is good for America. Therefore, immigration is good.
Many on the Left would have us believe that immigration is a matter of justice and fairness. They believe that immigration adds to the diversity of America. Because they believe that diversity is good, they feel immigration is good. Opposition is scorned as chauvinism or bigotry and is to be overcome preferably through indoctrination, or "education" as they often call it. Where indoctrination fails, compulsion through the law is relied upon.
Both sides commonly overlook human nature. They see society and culture as malleable and citizens as products of society. Change the law and you change society. Change society, and you change men. In order to change the law, one must control the government. That is why political contests have become more bitter and hard fought as the government grows ever larger in size and power. The more government controls, the more whoever is running the government controls. The more whoever is running the government controls, the higher the stakes in each election. The higher the stakes, the more bitter the contest.
At the bottom of the unease over immigration is human nature. People need predictability and familiarity. People need to believe that tomorrow will be like today and that others will be the same tomorrow as they are today. Without predictability, society becomes clamorous and confusing. Massive immigration undermines familiarity and predictability. Communities and neighborhoods change. Language changes. Customs and traditions change. Things that were once assumed or taken for granted suddenly become problematic. Some relish a carnival of langauges and customs. Most do not. Most people prefer predictabilty and tradition.
Where society is in constant flux it is difficult for many to adjust. When society changes more rapidly than people can adjust, resentment often results as people increasingly behold a world that is leaving them behind. Continuous immigration on the scale we are experiencing today provides little opportunity for communities and individuals to adjust. The resistance to change, and the slowness of people to adjust to it, as well as the resentment at having to change is more often attributed to ignorance and racism than natural human response. As is too often the case, when progressives find themselves in conflict with society, they insist that society yield.
Anomie is not the product of ignorance. It is part of human nature. It occurs in the wake of the detachment caused by changing circumstances that undermine the regularity and predictability of life. As the social world becomes increasingly unfamiliar to the individual, the individual no longer identifies with it. It becomes foreign to him; something that he must confront rather than participate in. Society becomes a challenge to the individual if he is to retain his identity and sense of self. The more quickly society changes, the greater the challenge.
Resentment at social change is not caused by racism, though racism can, and often does, contribute to it. It is the result of the frustration felt by those who feel they have no control over their lives and communities. It is the resentment by American citizens who feel that they are the ones being asked to assimilate and adapt to a new culture. They chafe at being the ones expected to adjust to meet new circumstances and meet the demands of a new culture they did not ask for and in many cases do not welcome. Asking people what immigration policy should be rather than telling them would be a good step towards giving people a sense of control over the issue. That sense of control would go a long way towards easing the resentment and bitterness that attend it.
Addressing public unease with immigration would require moving beyond numbers and statistics and entering the subjective world in which people live. But that is a messy and cluttered place filled with feelings, emotions, and sensibilities. It is a world opaque to reason and resistant to social planning. It is a world many wish did not exist. But it does exist and it must be taken into account. To do otherwise will only increase the alienation of the public from the government.
Coined by social theorist Emile Dirkheim in the 1950s, anomie is the condition of alienation caused by the disintegration of social codes. When the common mores and social codes of society begin to erode, the individual starts to lose his bearings. Things that he has taken for granted and values and customs that he has always relied upon as guides begin to disappear, and with them his comfort in the orderliness and predictability of his life. Such disorientation is commonly sneered at by advocates of social change as rooted in fear and ignorance or predicated upon simple routine and habit: shortcomings to be overcome in the new order. They feel it is the task of the indiviual to keep pace with society.
Immigration is almost always discussed in terms of numbers, costs and benefits. Any movement beyond the numbers is viewed suspiciously: as if beyond numbers lies only fear, emotion, and racism. But social disorientation caused by large and swift changes in demographics is a very real phenomenon. It is not a product of economic calculation as many on the right would have us believe. Nor is it a phantom or a product of ignorance and hate as many on the left would have us believe. It is a human response. It is human nature. It is very real.
Many on the Right believe that most things can and should be reduced to economic costs and benefits. Immigration is evaluated in terms of how it affects the economy. Where it is determined to benefit the economy, it is embraced. Opposition is viewed as ignorance and short sightedness. It is to be overcome through enlightening the public as to its self interest. They believe immigration is good for the economy. What is good for the economy is good for America. Therefore, immigration is good.
Many on the Left would have us believe that immigration is a matter of justice and fairness. They believe that immigration adds to the diversity of America. Because they believe that diversity is good, they feel immigration is good. Opposition is scorned as chauvinism or bigotry and is to be overcome preferably through indoctrination, or "education" as they often call it. Where indoctrination fails, compulsion through the law is relied upon.
Both sides commonly overlook human nature. They see society and culture as malleable and citizens as products of society. Change the law and you change society. Change society, and you change men. In order to change the law, one must control the government. That is why political contests have become more bitter and hard fought as the government grows ever larger in size and power. The more government controls, the more whoever is running the government controls. The more whoever is running the government controls, the higher the stakes in each election. The higher the stakes, the more bitter the contest.
At the bottom of the unease over immigration is human nature. People need predictability and familiarity. People need to believe that tomorrow will be like today and that others will be the same tomorrow as they are today. Without predictability, society becomes clamorous and confusing. Massive immigration undermines familiarity and predictability. Communities and neighborhoods change. Language changes. Customs and traditions change. Things that were once assumed or taken for granted suddenly become problematic. Some relish a carnival of langauges and customs. Most do not. Most people prefer predictabilty and tradition.
Where society is in constant flux it is difficult for many to adjust. When society changes more rapidly than people can adjust, resentment often results as people increasingly behold a world that is leaving them behind. Continuous immigration on the scale we are experiencing today provides little opportunity for communities and individuals to adjust. The resistance to change, and the slowness of people to adjust to it, as well as the resentment at having to change is more often attributed to ignorance and racism than natural human response. As is too often the case, when progressives find themselves in conflict with society, they insist that society yield.
Anomie is not the product of ignorance. It is part of human nature. It occurs in the wake of the detachment caused by changing circumstances that undermine the regularity and predictability of life. As the social world becomes increasingly unfamiliar to the individual, the individual no longer identifies with it. It becomes foreign to him; something that he must confront rather than participate in. Society becomes a challenge to the individual if he is to retain his identity and sense of self. The more quickly society changes, the greater the challenge.
Resentment at social change is not caused by racism, though racism can, and often does, contribute to it. It is the result of the frustration felt by those who feel they have no control over their lives and communities. It is the resentment by American citizens who feel that they are the ones being asked to assimilate and adapt to a new culture. They chafe at being the ones expected to adjust to meet new circumstances and meet the demands of a new culture they did not ask for and in many cases do not welcome. Asking people what immigration policy should be rather than telling them would be a good step towards giving people a sense of control over the issue. That sense of control would go a long way towards easing the resentment and bitterness that attend it.
Addressing public unease with immigration would require moving beyond numbers and statistics and entering the subjective world in which people live. But that is a messy and cluttered place filled with feelings, emotions, and sensibilities. It is a world opaque to reason and resistant to social planning. It is a world many wish did not exist. But it does exist and it must be taken into account. To do otherwise will only increase the alienation of the public from the government.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Immigration; Legal and Otherwise.
I suspect that if the Native Americans had a chance to do it all over, they would do a much better job protecting their borders and controlling immigration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)