Category Archives: The Welfare State

The Coming Welfare State Collapse

The Welfare State

Newsweek’s Robert Samuelson talks about the issue none of the Presidential frontrunners in either party are willing to each discuss:

Aug. 6, 2007 issue – If you haven’t noticed, the major presidential candidates—Republican and Democratic—are dodging one of the thorniest problems they’d face if elected: the huge budget costs of aging baby boomers. In last week’s CNN/YouTube debate, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson cleverly deflected the issue. “The best solution,” he said, “is a bipartisan effort to fix it.” Brilliant. There’s already a bipartisan consensus: do nothing. No one plugs cutting retirement benefits or raising taxes, the obvious choices.

Here’s a clue for those of you out there. Whenever you hear any politician, Republican or Democratic, respond to a question about an issue by talking about developing a “bipartisan consensus,” it means one of two things. Either they don’t have any idea how to address the problem to begin with, or they know how serious it is and what it’s going to take to fix it, but don’t have the courage to tell the American people the truth.

The aging of America is not just a population change or, as a budget problem, an accounting exercise. It involves a profound transformation of the nature of government: commitments to the older population are slowly overwhelming other public goals; the national government is becoming mainly an income-transfer mechanism from younger workers to older retirees.

Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—programs that serve older people—already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office. The result: a political impasse.

The 2030 projections are daunting. To keep federal spending stable as a share of the economy would mean eliminating all defense spending and most other domestic programs (for research, homeland security, the environment, etc.). To balance the budget with existing programs at their present economic shares would require, depending on assumptions, tax increases of 30 percent to 50 percent—or budget deficits could quadruple. A final possibility: cut retirement benefits by increasing eligibility ages, being less generous to wealthier retirees or trimming all payments.

Some who have written about this issue in the past have raised the spectre of generational political warfare pitting the old benefit recipients against the young who are forced to spend more and more of their tax dollars to support those people. And it may come to that if we don’t do something now.

And by “do something” I’m not talking about another band-aid affixed to Social Security and Medicare that pushes the day of reckoning out another 20 years or so. I’m talking about a permanent solution that, quite honestly, brings to an eventual end a welfare/retirement state that never should have existed in the first place.

Do I think there’s any likelihood of that happening before the crisis actually happens ?

Not at all.

H/T: Jason Pye

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

Fred Thompson — Federalist?

Constitution, Education, Election '08, Federalism, Politics, The Welfare State

I’m pulling for Ron Paul, but I have to have a question in the back of my mind. If Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination, should I vote Republican or Libertarian in 2008? The question comes down to this: “Is there anyone other than Ron Paul in the Republican field that I want to vote for, instead of just voting against Democrats?”

Since I live in California, the question is largely academic. California isn’t in danger of being a close state in the general election, so I have to vote for principle. I’ve already ruled out Giuliani, McCain, and I’m already leaning against Romney. But I know very little about Fred Thompson.

I received an email from Jon Henke, one of the bloggers from QandO, who is a Fred Thompson supporter. The email contained the last two paragraphs of this post, making me think that perhaps Fred Thompson believed in the same strain of federalism that I do:

A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected.

It is not enough to say that we are “for” federalism, because in today’s world it is not always clear what that means. What we are “for” is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge – meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents – is to answer these questions together.

Sounds pretty good, no? But when I read the whole think, I started to backtrack on that…

First, he points out that federalism creates 50 little “laboratories” across America, where different ideas can be tested out. Unfortunately, he first points out how wonderful it was that we could take those different ideas and start standardizing them across our entire nation:

A good example of this early in my Senate service was welfare reform. We were warned that terrible things would happen if we went forward with a bill – a fundamental commitment would be abandoned and, among state governments, a “race to the bottom” would begin.

But key to our approach were elements of welfare reform that had proved successful in various states, such as Colorado, Michigan and Wisconsin. The result was a law that allowed us to better meet our commitments to our fellow citizens. It was one of the great political successes of the 1990’s, because Washington – for once – had the good sense to learn from state and local authorities and empower them in return.

I’ll give him half a pass on this one. After all, one can make the argument that the welfare reform bill was an improvement over what existed, and federalism did assist to make that more efficient. However, Thompson doesn’t make the argument that welfare should be a state matter from the beginning, he argues that the federal government learned from federalism. Allowing states to compete ensures continually improving efficiency of future programs, codifying the results of past competition and keeping power in federal hands doesn’t prepare for the future.

But another point is just inexcusable. He again suggests that federalism might help efficiency of the federal government, but then states that the funding must remain in Washington’s hands. How does the guy who fondly references Ronald Reagan’s executive order leave out the fact that Reagan campaigned on the promise to abolish the federal Department of Education, and then suggest that the feds have a responsibility to fund education?

Perhaps the clearest example of federal over-involvement in state and local responsibilities is public education. It’s the classic case of how the federal government buys authority over state and local matters with tax-payer money and ends up squandering both the authority and the money while imposing additional burdens on states.

…

It is appropriate for the federal government to provide funding and set goals for the state to meet in exchange for that funding. However, it is not a good idea for the federal government to specifically set forth the means to be used in order to reach those goals. Adherence to this principle would make for fewer bureaucracies, fewer regulations, and less expense, while promoting educational achievement. There are bills pending in Congress that would move us in this direction, and I hope Congress gives them the attention they deserve.

It is appropriate for the feds to provide funding? I thought he was a federalist, and a Constitutionalist. Sure, Thompson can read the Tenth Amendment, but apparently he’s reading between the lines of Article I, Section 8 if he believes that the federal government has a role in local education, whether funding or control. I would remind him that with funding comes control, and that’s one of the biggest reason to sever the funding link, not try to ignore the fact that one follows the other.

Fred Thompson appears to be a federalist in the same way that George W. Bush appears to be a conservative: when it’s politically expedient.

Brad Warbiany
https://thelibertypapers.org/

Why Politics As Usual Will Always Be Politics As Usual

The Nanny State, The Welfare State, Theory and Ideas

Even in a political climate where everyone agrees that change needs to be made, that change never happens:

WASHINGTON, July 25 — For the many critics of farm subsidies, including President Bush and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this seemed like the ideal year for Congress to tackle the federal payments long criticized as enriching big farm interests, violating trade agreements and neglecting small family farms.

Many crop prices are at or near record highs. Concern over the country’s dependence on foreign oil has sent demand for corn-based ethanol soaring. European wheat fields have been battered by too much rain. And market analysts are projecting continued boom years for American farmers into the foreseeable future.

But as the latest farm bill heads to the House floor on Thursday, farm-state lawmakers seem likely to prevail in keeping the old subsidies largely in place, drawing a veto threat on Wednesday from the White House.

“The bill put forth by the committee misses a major opportunity,” Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said Wednesday. “The time really is right for reform in farm policy.”

Faced with fierce opposition from the House Agriculture Committee, Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders lowered their sights and are now backing the committee’s bill, in part to protect rural freshmen lawmakers who may be vulnerable in the 2008 elections.

Things like this aren’t the fault of Republicans or Democrats, they are the natural outgrowth of the political system that we live in today. To a large degree, the United States Government exists as a massive conduit for the transfer of wealth from one sector of the economy to the other. In this case, the so-called impoverished family farmer has convinced politicians, largely through the exercise of political power and the power of the purse, that your tax money and mine to them.

It makes no economic sense whatsoever, and everyone agrees it’s a bad idea. And yet, it continues, and continues to grow.

This, I am afraid, is the political reality that anyone who truly advocates liberty must deal with. Until the attitude of the general public is changed, any incremental victory that liberty may win will be temporary at best.

Doug Mataconis
http://www.belowthebeltway.com

“SiCKo” Patients Received Better Treatment than the Average Cuban

Election '08, General, Healthcare, Media, Politics, The Welfare State

Back in May in this post, I made the following statement about Michael Moore’s crockumentary on his claim that the average Cuban receives better healthcare than many Americans:

It probably won’t occur to anyone in the MSM that perhaps Castro would want Moore’s propaganda to cover up the failings of his government. Moore is doing Castro a great service by acting as his propaganda minister. Does anyone for a second believe that Castro would allow Moore to show these 9/11 heroes being treated as the average Cuban?

My basis for my comment was that in Moore’s previous efforts such as Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 he deliberately played fast and loose with the facts. History also shows that Communists lie. When you take a dishonest dictator and a dishonest individual such as Michael Moore you have propaganda (though each does a fine job of propagandizing on his own). Other than that, I had no other basis to assume that Moore’s movie SiCKo would have any misleading information…

That was until I stumbled across this Reuters article which repots that the 9/11 responders who Moore brought with him to Cuba received special VIP treatment:

The 9/11 responders spent 10 days on the 19th floor of Cuba’s flagship hospital with a view of the Caribbean sea, a sharp contrast to many Cuban hospitals that are crumbling, badly lit, and which lack equipment and medicine…

[…]

But the hospital where SiCKO’s patients were treated is an exception in Cuba, where patients of many other hospitals complain they have to take their own sheets and food.

The only question is whether or not Moore knew he was being conned or if he willingly participated to make his point. Does our healthcare system need improvement? Of course it does. But before we replace our system with one like Cuba’s, Canada’s, or England’s, shouldn’t we be just as critical of these systems as we are our own? Shouldn’t we at least try to find out what sort of problems the average citizens in these systems are dealing with before we throw ours away and replace it with a system which is possibly worse?

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/

PETA Swerves Into the Truth

Dumbasses and Authoritarians, Economics, Election '08, General, Healthcare, Individual Rights, Politics, The Nanny State, The War on Drugs, The Welfare State

Even organizations as wrongheaded and extreme as PETA can swerve into the truth on occasion. PETA’s president and founder Ingrid E. Newkirk wrote a letter to Michael Moore (the Fat Ass from Flint) in response to Moore’s upcoming crockumentary SiCKO; a film which advocates socialized healthcare and criticizes America’s current healthcare system. So what is PETA’s beef (pardon the pun) with the Fat Ass’s movie? The beef is that, due to his weight, he apparently eats a lot of beef.

Dear Mike,

Congratulations from PETA on your reviews for SiCKO. Although we think that your film could actually help reform America’s sorely inadequate health care system, there’s an elephant in the room, and it is you. With all due respect, no one can help but notice that a weighty health issue is affecting you personally. We’d like to help you fix that. Going vegetarian is an easy and life-saving step that people of all economic backgrounds can take in order to become less reliant on the government’s shoddy healthcare system, and it’s something that you and all Americans can benefit from personally…

[…]

Yes, America’s healthcare system needs to be fixed, but personal responsibility is a big part of why people look and feel as ill as they do.

Obliviously, PETA has an agenda here trying to convince the Fat Ass to become a vegetarian; I wouldn’t begrudge the Fat Ass his steak and eggs (as I would not give up my right to eat tasty animals) but rather encourage moderation of diet (though I am not the best person to preach such a message either. I could stand to lose a few pounds too). What Newkirk writes toward the end of her letter is very interesting, however. About the last thing I would expect to hear from a leftist is anything having to do with “personal responsibility.”

I do not believe that Newkirk’s point was that the U.S. should adopt more of a free market approach to healthcare opposed to the Fat Ass’s socialist/Hillary Clinton model but may have inadvertently helped make such an argument. Under socialist and communist systems, there are few rewards for individuals making good choices. Those who make very poor choices strain the system yet they receive the same benefits as those who have made better choices. Shouldn’t we be moving away from this sort of system and instead see what the free market has to offer?

I cannot for the life of me understand why health insurance operates so differently from virtually every other kind of insurance. The auto insurance industry charges lower premiums for drivers who have better driving records than those with wrecks and tickets. Home owner policies are less for people who choose to live closer to a fire station. Life insurance companies give better rates to those who are at or close to their ideal weight, don’t smoke, don’t drink excessively, or otherwise live a life of minimal risk. It seems to me that if the health insurance industry followed the same model, healthcare would be much less expensive and the healthcare providers and health insurers would make more profit than they do now.

Even more than the free market reasons for opposing socialized medicine, there is also a moral argument to consider. We simply cannot demand freedom if we are not willing to accept responsibility. We cannot oppose the war on (some) drugs on moral grounds if we are not willing to tell those who wish to harm their bodies that they should also be responsible for their own trip to the hospital (and all other expenses they incur from making a bad choice). Those of us who choose not to smoke, drink excessively, or overeat should not be expected to pay more for those who do. Living in a free society means taking responsibility for your own choices.

Stephen Littau
http://fpffressminds.blogspot.com/
1 … 36 37 38 39 40 41