The opening line of the
Beatles’ iconic “Sergeant Pepper’s” album is echoing in my thought: “It was 20
years ago today…” Well, not quite to the day, but 20 years ago I published an
article titled, “$4 Trillion and Counting.” In it, I despaired at the rapid
increase in the national debt from its first-ever
crossing of the $1 trillion mark during the Reagan presidency to four times that
gargantuan amount in only a decade.
Today, a mere two decades
later, we have quadrupled the national debt again, to $16 trillion.
(That figure represents the official national debt, but if you add the many
“off-budget” items and all the liabilities that are conveniently omitted from
government “accounting,” then it’s multiples of the
official number.)
Who is to blame?
Let’s start by picking the
low-hanging fruit: “progressives,” a.k.a, Democrats. The Dems always want
more federal spending, higher taxes, more government. Indeed, there is no major
area of economic activity over which they want less control. Whether it’s food, energy, housing, health care, retirement, finance, transportation, education, etc., they always want to
expand the government’s scope and power.
The Democrats have led the way
toward bigger government. They always succeed in getting Republicans to
blink every time the debt ceiling is reached, because
whereas Republicans are
ambivalent and divided about Big Government, progressives are united and
utterly committed to it. They do not vacillate; the Republicans do, and so they
buckle.
Surely, though, now that we
are racing toward a jarring fiscal cliff, the government’s
credit rating is at risk, and major entitlement programs are on a collision
course with insolvency, Democrats will compromise to fix these problems before
it’s too late, won’t they?
The short answer, dear reader,
is “No.” On the contrary, the threat of insolvency is something that progressives
welcome. They view it as a means to an end.
The key to understanding this
dynamic is to recognize what
progressives want. They want government control over economic matters, and so they adopt
whatever strategies will further that goal. We saw this strategy in action with
at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When the two mortgage giants
were about to implode from insolvency, Congress simply nationalized them,
making the taxpayers responsible for their financial obligations.
Do you think Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, and
the other “progressives” were sad about that pair of nationalizations? It
is more likely that they popped open champagne bottles and celebrated, for now
they had achieved government control over the gigantic home mortgage business.
What do you suppose Democrats
will propose on the day that funds run dry for Social Security or Medicare?
They surely won’t say, “Sorry, folks we’re broke; end of program.” Instead, in
the case of Social Security, they will try to use the emergency as the pretext
to nationalize private retirement accounts a la Argentina (they’ve already held
congressional hearings about taking this step); in the case of Medicare, they will do what many of
them already have stated they want to do—nationalize it.
It doesn’t even matter to the Dems if the whole government goes bankrupt. Look at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s obstinate (and criminal) refusal to let the Senate vote on a federal budget. That indicates that the Dems have gone “all in” on their diabolical “bankruptcy as the road to nationalization” strategy. They will tell a scared public that the government will continue to take care of them, the Republicans will be afraid to oppose “a strong government response” to the fiscal emergency, and the government will take over large swaths of the private sector.
It doesn’t even matter to the Dems if the whole government goes bankrupt. Look at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s obstinate (and criminal) refusal to let the Senate vote on a federal budget. That indicates that the Dems have gone “all in” on their diabolical “bankruptcy as the road to nationalization” strategy. They will tell a scared public that the government will continue to take care of them, the Republicans will be afraid to oppose “a strong government response” to the fiscal emergency, and the government will take over large swaths of the private sector.
Now for some bipartisanship:
The Republicans must share in the blame for the government’s fiscal woes. Other
than Ron Paul, what Republican has refused to vote for expansions of government
into numerous areas not enumerated in the Constitution? Yes, Republicans
generally have wanted to grow government at a slower rate than the Democrats,
but they still have supported its continued growth. The most “conservative”
long-term fiscal plan that has gained any traction in the Republican Party has
been Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan that would increase the
national debt by “only” $4 or $5 trillion over the next decade. If that is the
most “radical,” “right-wing” “anti-government” plan on the table, then clearly
the flood of red ink will continue to swell (that is, until the Federal Reserve Note tanks and the
system cracks up).
Having blamed both Democrats
and Republicans for our impending national bankruptcy, is there anyone else
left to blame? Yes, indeed, now we come to the principal culprits: “We, the people.” It’s very convenient to
blame politicians for our fiscal wreck, but the bottom line is that a lot of
Americans want the government to do things for them, and so they elect big spenders. Perhaps Joseph de Maistre
(1753-1821) was correct when he wrote, “Every country has the government it
deserves.”
The reason our government is
broke is staring most Americans in the face whenever they look into a mirror.
Too many of us have acquiesced to, if not agitated for, a corrupt political
system. As I wrote in that article 20 years ago, “Americans must return to the
traditional principle of respecting the property of others, rather than seek to
obtain a portion of it through government … Until then, four [now 16] trillion
dollars is just another milestone on the way to economic ruin.”
No comments:
Post a Comment