It is wisely ordained by nature that private connections should prevail over universal views and considerations, otherwise our affections and action would be dissipated and lost for want of a proper limited object.
-David Hume
Leonard Pitts, an editorialist with the Miami Herald, has taken umbrage with those critical of government and resentful of their tax burden. Pitts makes the familiar and rarely challenged argument that government is necessary to any civilized society. He is correct. Government is indeed necessary. No one, at least no one not on the fringe of society, is arguing otherwise. It is a common rhetorical tactic to paint those critical of government spending as "anti government" and who, in their anti establishment zeal, seek to toss the baby out with the bath water. In fact, it is nothing of the sort.
The government is Washington is a behemoth. What it does not control, it regulates. What it does not regulate it manipulates. What it does not manipulate, it influences. Washington, specifically the people who run it and support it, has an insatiable appetite for control. There is no wrong it does not seek to right. There is no suffering it does not seek to ameliorate. There is no problem it believes is beyond its grasp. It is the desire to ease the plight of mankind and improve the world that progressives see when they examine themselves and their motivations. It is their efforts to reshape the world for the better that they behold when they look upon what they have achieved in Washington. To criticize their policies is to impugn their judgement. To criticize the efficacy of those policies is to impugn their efforts. This is why so many take criticism of the government so personally. To criticize the government is to criticize them.
The discussion over the size,scope, and cost of government is a discussion that needs to be had. The first item on the list of that discussion is the plain and simple fact that as things stand, the government of the United States cannot afford to pay for all the obligations it has taken upon itself. That is not a partisan position. It is an economic fact. The numbers prove it. Once that is established the hard part begins. Based on the money we have, what can we afford? Just as a parent who cannot afford to buy her child a new coat is not a miserly or indifferent parent, a government that cannot afford to provide subsidised health care to every one who needs it is not a miserly or indifferent government, despite what you may hear in the media. The heart and soul of politics is making decisions. It is the government that has to make decisions regarding what can and should be paid for and what cannot. It is the public that has to decide whether those decisions are good ones, or at least ones they can live with.
The first step toward this end is distinguishing between what we need government to do and what we want government to do. As many correctly point out, we need government. We need it to maintain police and fire departments. We need a military to defend us. We need agencies to ensure the water we drink is clean, that our buildings don't fall down, and that we are not swindled by banks. We need to pay taxes to make sure the government can do those things. But even those things are not immune from politics and budget pressure. If a town needs to choose between paying for a new sewer line or buying a new fire truck a decision has to be made. That decision will have to be made in a larger political context. If they can only afford one or the other, which will it be? That is what politics is about. To say the town needs both is not the same as to say the town can afford both. The problem in Washington is that paying for policies is too often subsequent to passing them. If they don't have the money when they get to the check out counter, and they haven't in a long time, they just pull out the credit card.
Where Pitts and others frequently err is on two fronts. First they overly dramatize the results of spending cuts. In Pitts' case he uses the example of a man so in need of medical treatment and so unable to afford it he robs a bank in order to be sent to prison where he can receive that treatment. A heart rending story indeed but a poor one to frame massive federal legislation around, even if you multiply it by a few thousand. Tragic stories of suffering are never difficult to find. But there are other more efficient and cost effective remedies for helping those in need than government policy. The problem is the best of those remedies lay in the private sector and have little appeal to those who want more from their beneficence than the satisfaction of helping others.
Neither would every budget cut result in people being cast into the street or going hungry. Not all government spending is for the benefit of those in need. Not by far. Only a little over 16% of the 2010 federal budget went to unemployment and welfare. Even a modest reduction in the other 84% would have significant results. The government took in $2.4 trillion last year. It spent spent $3.52 trillion. Some believe that each one of those 3.52 trillion dollars spent was necessary. There are even some who argue that more needed to be spent. It is quite a stretch, indeed it is ludicrous, to argue that making an effort to reduce the deficit, never mind addressing the debt, will result in people robbing banks or taking other desperate measures to obtain needed services. There is no reason for assistance to the poor and disabled to be any higher on the list of things to cut than foreign aide, defense, agriculture, tax breaks, economic subsidies, or any other item in the budget. To make the argument that the poor, the children, the blind and the crippled will be the ones to suffer if the budget is cut is simply to use them as human shields to protect government spending.
Decisions have to made regarding spending. Government has to distinguish between what it wants, what it needs, and what it can afford. Washington has proved to be extraordinarily unable to make a distinction. It has been trying to fund everything while persistently taking on new obligations. It simply cannot afford to do so. That is not politics. It is economics. The United States has become a junkie addicted to government spending. And, like a junkie, we need to quit. If we quit we will be miserable, at least for a time, but we will be better for it. If we don't quit, we will die. As anyone who has been in that position can tell you, as hard and unpleasant as the decision seems, there is only one choice.
The interest payments on the national debt last year totaled 202 billion dollars. $202 billion is a lot of money. We will pay more in interest this year. A lot could have been done with that money. Nothing was done with it. It was simply sent to our lenders. With hard work, sacrifice, and a willingness to curtail our hopes and dreams of what government can do for us the day could come when we can pay off the debt. If that day comes, we will have an extra couple of hundred billion dollars to spend. That will be the time for talking about all the wonderful things government should do for us. We can all have top notch schools, community clinics, and spanking new firetrucks. Best of all, we could sleep at night knowing they were paid for. But that day will never come until we can start balancing our budgets.
Pitts says he doesn't begrudge others for his tax money. That is fine. He is a good man. The problem is that it is not his tax money. It belongs to everyone. It is commendable to give your money away to help those in distress or pay for things you think are important. Sacrifice and charity are two of mankind's most noble traits. Compelling money from people and distributing it, (after you have covered your expenses naturally), is neither noble nor compassionate and adds nothing to a person's moral stature. Neither does it in any way make those whose money is taken away more charitable. It is little more than a business transaction undertaken to satisfy the sensibilities of those who feel things should be different.
Many people take some satisfaction in that by paying their taxes and supporting government programs they are helping those in need. They evidently feel that by simply paying their taxes and voicing their support they are doing their part to make society a better place, as if every poor person helped and every indigent person treated is in some small way due to their willingness to support programs and pay their taxes. Perhaps that is why they get so angered when social spending is cut: it makes them feel as if it is they who are being less charitable. If government cuts spending it does not mean that those in need have to go without. It does not make Americans less charitable or caring. It means that Americans will have to take the obligation of caring for others upon themselves. Clearly that is an obligation many people would rather not have.
We have been borrowing money to maintain an illusion of what Washington should be. If we do not stop, that illusion will become a delusion.
