The lower table is my creation and shows if the yr over year spend was/is held at 3%. (one time exception for FY 2011)
Here are some questions I have:
- What drove up our revenues and expenditures so much in FY 2011? (ie spend up 9.7% when inflation was nil) The Federal one time stimulus/jobs spend?
- Then is FY2011 a good benchmark for FY2012 or is it inflated due to stimulus funds and efforts?
- Shouldn't the budget target for FY 2012 be $30,139,823 per the lower table? (~6% over FY2010)
- Why is the planned spend going down in FY2013? More games or do we have a few more fed dollars that we are committed to spend in FY2012?
- Total Resources Available in FY 2013 is down because of the negative Budget balance at end of FY2012 on the MN chart.
- If we can live with a 3% annual budget increase, the budgetary balance stays positive. We can even start paying back the shift...
- If some things like Health care expenses go up more than 3%, then the Government will need to increase less than 3% in some other area to offset it.
Thoughts?
42 comments:
My thought is I have very capable representaives in the house and senate to figure these things out on my behalf. If it looks to me that things are being cut too much, I will pass along that opinion and even volunteer in a neighboring district to try and help dems take back both chambers in 2012. Your questions do get at what I find quite irritating- how so many contradictory claims are made about the same budget - whether spending has increased or decreased and by how much. It is all much to complicated for the average voter.
So help me understand, you don't understand the numbers yet you are pretty sure too much is being "cut"? Did I really hear that right...
Rows 2,3&4 and 10,11&12 are pretty straight forward. How much do you want the cost of Government and Society to increase each year?
Anything over the Consumer Price Index means it is eating a larger portion of the whole. Is this sustainable? Soon we will be working into June to pay this bill...
You didn't read my commnent carefully, the phrase "cut too much" was preceded by the word "If", but you did correctly surmise that this is my likely conclusion. (More specifically, if I lose my job due to cuts in education spending then I will know for sure that the cuts have been too deep!)
Your chart really is quite clear and somewhat helpful for analyzing the budget numbers. I think there are too many variables; however, for it to be highly useful. My favorite chart is even more simple it is the price of government one, which shows we are spending less than my preferred level of govt. My How We Decide book about decision making, which I got around to finisheing this weekend, says complex decisions with many variables are best handled on a gut feeling/intuitive/emotional level. That works for me.
If I read about too many teachers laid off, too many people losing their health care, nursing homes closing etc., I will know the cuts are too deep.
Sorry I missed the IF... I was distracted and busy cursing at the terrible program called Disqus.(ie hard to post to)
A detail regarding the Price of Government slide is that we are actually still spending the money. The expenses have just been moved to the local level or placed in user fees. Not necessarily a bad thing.
So if the tax increases impact my household... Then I know the increases were too much? It is one way to assess things.
Revenue is up because the economy is recovering a bit. Whether that recovery will continue is anyone's guess. One issue is higher gas and energy prices. Is the current spike permanent or temporary? If permanent that will not only add to the cost of government, it might also slow the economy.
A lot of what happened during the last campaign were arguments about the definition of the problem rather then a discussion of a solution. Basically, it was a dispute over whether federal stimulus money spent by the state should be considered state spending, something of an quantity of angels dancing on a pin sort of dispute. The budgetary reality is that federal money is now used up and gone, and we cannot balance the budget as we must without cutting services, raising revenues, or some combination thereof.
The choice of benchmarks may be helpful in understanding the problem, but comparisons with the past won't solve the problems we are dealing with today. The federal stimulus allowed us to put of with dealing the the most direct impact of the structural deficit for a couple of years, but the days of reckoning are now here. How you want to see that in terms of benchmarks is your choice and a matter of perception. But the forces driving up the cost of what government does are still there, and are not affected by the tools we use to measure them.
-Hiram
"If I read about too many teachers laid off, too many people losing their health care, nursing homes closing etc., I will know the cuts are too deep."
Sorry, but that is an unreliable indicator at best. Because the DFL's only reasoning on budget matters is that government must do everything for everybody, any change or reduction in the rate of increase of spending will be accompanied by wails of phony compassion, and every anecdote they can find or make up will be trumpeted loudly by the mainstream press as if they were evidence of something.
I remember an ABC news story back when Reagan was "slashing" government spending (i.e. slowing the rate of growth) about this "poor young single mother" who, because she was working and bringing in too much money was having her welfare benefit reduced, was going to have to go live with her mother. Mom had a big house all paid for, but was barely making a go with just her Social Security and was willing to look after the kid while her daughter worked. So what would appear to be a perfect solution for all concerned was a "terrible" situation, according to ABC. That's when I quit watching ABC. I commend to you the same approach.
J. Ewing
Jon,
If you don't like 3% (ie CPI) growth, what growth rate do you want and for how long? As I mentioned, every percentage point above this comes out of the Private sector... How long can we afford this higher rate of growth?
Budgets can be set top-down or bottom-up... If we know the total we are willing to spend. (ie top) Then we can divide it up based on priorities, and somethings will likely drop out. Kind of like a family's household budget. It may not be feasible to keep all of the commitments that were made in the past. (ie the kids will need to go to a less expensive college)
And why did you think FY 2013 planned spend was lower than FY 2012? I missed that...
I think the FY 2011 revenue increase was the Fed money. It went up too fast to be the economy improving. And the planned FY2012 is down again. (ie looks temporary)
J,
Are you saying that having family and friends provide a safety net for their kin / friends makes sense... What an original idea !!! I don't hear that very much anymore.
Minnesota is getting older and that's expensive. I just want to know where to send the bill, or whether we just want to walk away from it.
We have political decisions to make. Can we afford the luxury of having old people? Can we afford the luxury of having children?
-Hiram
I would very much like to limit the cost of health care in this state to the CPI. But I can tell you the moment I proposed to do that I would be accused of being a socialist, a rationer, and a founder of my neighborhood death panel. My party lost the last election because we proposed and enacted legislation, the impact of which falls far short of the CPI proposal.
And as for education, the other component of government spending. If I proposed a 3% increase in the per student funding formula, I would be laughed out of whatever room I happened to be in. Suffice it to say, that ain't going to happen.
-Hiram
The biggest problem with having government solve social problems is that almost anything they do is not only not helpful, but just flat-out wrong. For example, government medical assistance disrupts the markets and actually create MORE cost inflation than what now occurs in private health insurance. In fact, the government health "insurance" model now causes almost HALF of all costs.
Similarly, education assistance creates education cost inflation, and welfare assistance creates a dependent class, or at least did until welfare reform in the 90's, much of which has since been undone in places like Minnesota.
Whenever somebody asks what "we" can afford I always want to know who "we" is. If you are talking about friends, family, neighbors, churches, private charities and businesses, the answer is "anything we want." If the answer is "big government through forced taxataion" then the answer is "just stop it." The average three-year-old knows better when she says "I'd rather do it myself!"
J. Ewing
a few thoughts in response to the many interesting comments:
to John: I don't think all the dollars cut from LGA are matched by rising property taxes. Some spending shifted and the price of govt may not have dropped as low as shown in the graph, but I am pretty sure it is down. I can see this very clearly in the schools I am familiar with.
I completely agree with Hiram:
"...The federal stimulus allowed us to put of with dealing the the most direct impact of the structural deficit for a couple of years, but the days of reckoning are now here...." I wish I was smart enough to come up with these kind of intelligent comments.
to J. Ewing, I agree that there can be too much of a safety net, or hammock as some call it. At what point would you agree there is too little? For instance, do 40,000 American deaths each year linked to lack of health care trouble you at all?
To Jon, why couldn't budgets be formed both "top down and "bottum up" and meet some where in the middle. Both approaches make sense to me. Also, sometimes families discover that they need more money that what is in their current budget and raise revenues (work overtime or get a second job) to afford a necessary expenditure like college.
Nokomis,
FYI... In case you did not know. Jon and Hiram are the same person.
Top down and Bottom up is fine. The challenge is that there is no good way for the Government /Society to work overtime. They can only take more productive wealth out of the Private sector. So how much can be taken from the Private sector without catastrophic results?
Remember that many of us work roughly 4-5 mths just to pay for our Government and Society's costs. Hiram can keep saying the people are getting older so we need to raise the budget.
However, if our elders did not choose to fully fund Social Security during their working years and were happy with their lower taxes instead, maybe they deserve less in their retirement years? An interesting but not very popular concept.
All, How many months per year are you willing to work for the Government /Society?
Hiram, So you raise education 0% and raise HHS 6%... This seems to be the path we have chosen. So our educators better become more creative, more efficient, more effective, more selective regarding their employees, and REDUCE THEIR OVERHEAD. (ie combine districts) That means the Union has to be declawed, because they oppose most of these improvements.
John,
It seems to me some more wise public sector spending would make the $ more productive. I thought the stimulous was quite effective. It seems all the wealth in the private sector is not doing that great at job creation.
about social security - voters should have held leaders more accountable for using the huge surpluses to plan ahead better for the baby boom retirement wave. Even so it won't take that much to make the system solvent.
about healthcare - it will take a lot to bring those costs under control. I prefer a single payer system that won't try to pay for every test and treatment. The majority, who can afford it, could supplement this basic care plan with more comprehensive private insurance.
about taxes-the happiest people are those paying the highest taxes
Nokomis,
The Private sector mostly only spends money on good investments. {ie need a return to justify risk} Unfortunately a lot of the Gov't programs go to "make work" programs that may or may not be good investments. (ie light rail, bike paths, short term Teachers{1 yr}, DNR buying land, etc)
Private industry has started and will continue rehiring as demand grows. (ie Buy American)Ironically, I spoke to a hiring Mgr at another company today. He said it is getting hard to find qualified personnel again. Most of the remaining unemployed seemed to him to need some additional skills to make them more employable. (ie there is a reason they are unemployed...)
As for the Happy folks of Northern Europe... Remember that Socialism draws freeloaders like a moth to a flame. And they put up the insect netting to keep them out.(see links) The primary difference is the USA takes in a lot more immigrants of all levels. That is why we are one of the few developed countries scheduled to grow over the next 40 years.
Sweden Joins Europe-wide Backlash
Norway Migrant Quality not Quantity
Denmark to tightem Immigration
I'll leave the Social Security funding comment to J. Why do you think it wouldn't take much to fully fund it? I think it is a huge number...
"why couldn't budgets be formed both "top down and "bottum up" and meet some where in the middle."
A balanced approach? A compromise? I would say because one party is ideologically committed not to doing that, and they have the power to stop it.
"if our elders did not choose to fully fund Social Security during their working years and were happy with their lower taxes instead, maybe they deserve less in their retirement years?"
Our elders did choose to fully fund Social Security. Payments to Social Security have been in surplus in most years for decades. That surplus was intended to fund the baby boomer retirement. But now that time is here, and a lot of people don't want to keep the promise that were made back in the 1983, because that would mean higher taxes.
"Hiram, So you raise education 0% and raise HHS 6%... This seems to be the path we have chosen."
We haven't chosen any path yet. Two years ago we cut education, dressing it up in the form of a "shift". And the health budget is going up more like 20% a year.
"So our educators better become more creative, more efficient, more effective, more selective regarding their employees, and REDUCE THEIR OVERHEAD. (ie combine districts) That means the Union has to be declawed, because they oppose most of these improvements."
Schools seem to have no problem laying off teachers. RAS closed three schools in order to increase efficiency, etc., a decision decried by many who now want to reverse it, by reopening those buildings as charter schools.
We went through a lot of district consolidation a few years back. My general view on that is that optimal district size is determined by a set of countervailing forces. You want districts to be efficient, but small enough to be responsive. Schools are, after all, a local neighborhood thing. You can't move all the kids of Minnesota into one big school building in Minneapolis, no matter how efficient that would be. But this is also another area in which politics rears it's ugly head. Lots of people live where they do because they like their local school district, and don't want it to change, and that's the way they will vote.
-Hiram
'However, if our elders did not choose to fully fund Social Security during their working years and were happy with their lower taxes instead, maybe they deserve less in their retirement years?"
This is a fair position. Maybe the solution to the problems of our elderly is simply to avert our gaze, to let them pass from the scene quietly, with perhaps palliative care only. We won't have death panels, nobody will have the responsibility for making the decisions to deny care. Those decisions will simply be made by default.
After all, how many extra days should I be required just so some old guy gets a decent level of health care. It's not as if I will ever get old myself.
-HIram
"do 40,000 American deaths each year linked to lack of health care trouble you at all?" -- nokomis
No, they don't, frankly, because I don't believe it. The last time I saw a number like that it was to promote the idea of Obamacare, which will guarantee that at least as many people die. The actual claim, in fact, was that these folks died from lack of health /insurance/, which has absolutely nothing to do with health care, and is not even remotely related to who did or did not provide that insurance. My father died while on Medicare. Everybody over the age of 65 dies while covered by Medicare; it does not prevent death. There are roughly 9 million people in this country eligible for Medicaid, but don't sign up for it. Are their deaths from "lack of medical care" their fault, or the fault of "society"? What if somebody that HAS Medicaid dies? Can we blame the government, or the Medicaid administrators (like we do when somebody with private insurance dies)?
Here's the simple fact. Health care is not and can never be a right. Somebody has to pay for it, and you get what you pay for. The rich folks may get better treatment than the poor, but then what we used to have-- charity hospitals and the like-- could step in. The other simple fact is that government interference in the health care market has essentially doubled the cost for everybody, meaning that some who might buy their own insurance have been priced out of it and suffer accordingly. It's just one more area where government ought to simply butt out and we'd all be better off.
J. Ewing
As for Social Security, it is and always was a Ponzi scheme of the first rank, sustained at various times by the combined myths of it being an "insurance program," or sending you a statement of the money in "your account," or by the notion of a "trust fund."
[While we're at it, let's dispose of the notion that a "lockbox" would have made the trust fund real. The only way a Social Security surplus can be "saved" is by purchasing special US treasury bonds, with the money going into the general fund, where it is promptly spent by Congress. The only way to pay for Social Security benefits from the trust fund is to redeem those bonds, meaning that Congress must take funds from the general fund, or raise the deficit, or raise taxes or cut benefits (which they can do at any time, on a whim. There are no guarantees!]
The solution for Social Security is just what Hiram said, which is to cut Social Security taxes, on a sliding scale based on age, and reduce future benefits accordingly. The youngest workers under this plan would pay no Social Security taxes and get no Social Security benefits when they retired. Thus, it took us about 40 years to get into this pickle and in 40 years we will get back out of it. Coincidentally, we are told that the Social Security trust fund will "last" for roughly 40 years, so we should be good, right?
The only thing that you might want to add to this is to mandate that every employee have an IRA and that they place a certain percentage of their income into it, to "ensure" that the less responsible among us will still have a retirement income of some kind. It's a world of difference better than what we have now.
J. Ewing
"Here's the simple fact. Health care is not and can never be a right."
Why the categorical statement? It is in the rest of the world, where people can and do pay for it. Not providing health care is a decision we make, either actively by death panels, or passively just by failing to reach a decision on the issue.
I should note here that health care in our country is much more expensive than in countries where health care is nationalized. So it does not necessarily follow that government health care is more expensive than the system we have now.
--Hiram
"As for Social Security, it is and always was a Ponzi scheme of the first rank, sustained at various times by the combined myths of it being an "insurance program," or sending you a statement of the money in "your account," or by the notion of a "trust fund." "
A Ponzi scheme in a financial system in which more money is paid out than paid in. Historically, SS paid out what was paid in. Not a Ponzi scheme. The reform Ronald Reagan made in 1983 in anticipation of the retirement of the baby boom generation was for more money to be paid in than be taken out, again not a Ponzi scheme. The surplus was to be paid back as the boomers reached retirement age. Now Republicans want to break that promise. In effect, it is now Republican policy to turn what hasn't been a Ponzi scheme into one, and somehow to blame someone else for it.
Hiram,
Is J correct that the Social Security "Savings" are in Government securities? If so, how can this be considered "Funded"?
Wouldn't taxes be needed to pay the debt back or to pay the social security payments? Help !!!
"Is J correct that the Social Security "Savings" are in Government securities?"
The surplus is, that is the amount received in excess of the amount paid out since 1983, or earlier.
"If so, how can this be considered "Funded"?"
Social Security isn't funded in the sense that there are bricks of gold under some mattress ready to be sold off to pay for future benefits. The excess was loaned to the government in exchange for bonds which resulted in lowering the amount of taxes we pay.
"Wouldn't taxes be needed to pay the debt back or to pay the social security payments?"
Yes. Like any money the government borrows, the money loaned to the government by workers must be paid back one day. That's the deal Ronald Reagan made. Now you might say the deal Reagan made was a bad one, now that the bill for it is coming due. But that deal was always just an effect of an underlying cause, which is the aging of the population. That would have happened whether Reagan had made his deal or not.
--Hiram
The exisence Ponzi scheme turns on the promise that payments will be made out of the scheme. What makes it fraudulent is if the operator of the scheme knows or should have known, that at some point that promise would not be kept.
A government bond, whether for social security or anything else, is a promise to repay. For the typical US bond, that promise is it's only security. It's not supported by say, a mortgage on the Washington Monument. Nevertheless, since the founding of the Republic, or maybe a year or two after the founding, US government debt has been regarded as absolutely safe, the very benchmark of security. In loaning the SS surplus to the federal government, the trustees were making what they thought was the safest investment possible. I don't think it ever occurred to them, that we would have what we now have, a Congress many of whose members are seriously considering defaulting on our debt.
--Hiram
Sounds to me like they did knowlingly set up a Ponzi scheme. Maybe we will need to start selling some of those National Landmarks or Parks...
"Sounds to me like they did knowingly set up a Ponzi scheme."
In response, I would say that Ronald Reagan did not knowingly set up a system under which the government could not meet it's obligations. And I don't think it honestly occurred to him that future politicians would break the promises he made in 1983. The politicians who want to break that promise, to turn SS into a Ponzi scheme, remind of the kids who murders his parents, and then asks the judge for leniency on the ground that he is an orphan.
Even today, I think it's perfectly possible to keep Reagan's promises, it's just a question of whether we have the political will to do it. After all, Social Security, while it does have it's problems is in fairly decent shape. The program that's truly a disaster is Medicare. And you will notice TV talking heads are far less willing to talk about cuts in that program. There are cynics among us who that's because those guys are all rich and don't see themselves as dependent on Social Security, but rich as they are, they know they will be deeply dependent on Medicare.
--Hiram
I assume Bernie Madoff and Tom Petters thought their income growth would stay ahead of their payments... Either that or they were very foolish... (ie jail time)
If Reagan truly thought Tax revenues would grow fast enough to overcome the compunding needed to pay for all these people's retirement, he must have been very foolish also.
The only reason my retirement plan works is because it is growing in size faster than inflation, and outside my own personal mattress. If I had loaned the money to myself, I also would be very foolish.
"I assume Bernie Madoff and Tom Petters thought their income growth would stay ahead of their payments."
Ponzi schemes are often victims of their own fraud.
"If Reagan truly thought Tax revenues would grow fast enough to overcome the compunding needed to pay for all these people's retirement, he must have been very foolish also."
He didn't think that, or at least he shouldn't have thought that. What he believed is that was the government would decide meet it's obligations. We may or may not do that. It's our choice.
"The only reason my retirement plan works is because it is growing in size faster than inflation, and outside my own personal mattress. If I had loaned the money to myself,"
Did you not invest in yourself, when you got an education? Took a job, bought a house? I leave it to you to decide how these investments turned out.
--Hiram
"I should note here that health care in our country is much more expensive than in countries where health care is nationalized."
We also know that our care is vastly superior, and SHOULD cost more for that reason. Other countries spend less because they ration. We also know, from Mayo studies, that the way in which our government has interfered in the free market has DOUBLED our cost of care, so that we could have top quality care for LESS than most of these countries. Believing that the government wizards that screwed it up can step in and fix it is fantasy. Now if they would step OUT....
I said that health care is not a right, and it isn't. Rights are things which one person can have without taking something from another, like the right of freedom of speech. My exercise of the right doesn't affect yours in the least. Medical care, on the other hand, depends on a provider-- doctor, hospital, drug company-- and if you do not pay for the service you are stealing. That's not a right. Put it another way: We could "give" everybody free health care simply by passing a law that said doctors,hospitals and drug companies had to give their products and services away at no charge. Who has the rights in this scenario, and who has rights taken away? ANY interference by government in the transaction is just a half-measure of this scenario. Think how much could be cut out of the budget if we made people responsible for their own health care, and allowed providers a full tax credit for charitable care delivered?
J. Ewing
I have made and maintain many investments, as does our country. The one in question at this time is how should an individual or country save and invest ahead of a large known future expense? Preferably using compounding to increase the principal. Instead of trying to pay it all when the bill comes due.
Or maybe Private corporations should be allowed to invest all their Employee's pension funds in the company's stock. Then the company could invest that money in the company's growth and improvement. I mean I am sure they will have profits to buy the stock back when they have to pay the disbursements... Won't they?
Now we know Private Companies need to invest their employee's pension fund elsewhere... Why did my elders not insist on the same for their Social Security? My guess is they preferred lower taxes back then also. So if they decided to invest poorly, do they really deserve a good pay out? (ie not enough, too safe and low return)
Remember that I am a big fan of a balanced budget ammendment... If you don't have it, don't spend it or commit to a liability.
Krugman, my go to guy on this and other economic issues, recently reprinted what he wrote on social security three years ago. He convinced me that...
"What we really have is a looming crisis in the General Fund. Social Security, with its own dedicated tax, has been run responsibly; the rest of the government has not. So why are we talking about a Social Security crisis? "
The crises takes place around 2018, when benefits start to exceed the payroll tax...
Except the crisis point when SS pays out more than it takes in was LAST YEAR! And it isn't getting better.
The problem with SS is that it is and always was a pay-as-you-go system, where current recipients are paid of current taxes. Creating the surplus, as the Congress during the time of Reagan did, only creates a phony sense of security because the special bonds are not an asset, as stock in a company would be. They're strictly IOUs that one part of the federal government issues to another part.
When Chile reformed its SS system, they did it cold turkey, and what they did was to pass out the bonds in their surplus to individuals on a prorated basis. Those bonds immediately became real assets! Then everybody contributed to an IRA for themselves rather than paying in, and wonders happened!
J. Ewing
"Now we know Private Companies need to invest their employee's pension fund elsewhere... Why did my elders not insist on the same for their Social Security?"
Because they understood America was a better and more secure investment than any private company. Take a look at the components of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in 1937. How do you think that investment in Nash Motors worked out.
Traditionally, retirement planning was a three-legged stool, pension, savings and Social Security. For young people entering starting out today, one leg is completely gone. They won't have a pension as such other than their savings. And to be blunt about it, they won't be saving nearly enough. IMO, defined contribution plans are very likely better than defined benefit plans for young people who take advantage of them, but the secret of them is that people don't. As a result, 30 or 40 years from now, people will be much more dependent on SS than retirees are today, and therefore it will be much more difficult to "reform", i.e. cut the program then it is now.
I thought that traditionally it was a 1 + a bit legged stool... (ie personal saving and charity) It looks like Pensions and Social Security are creations of the 20th century. Wiki Retirement Plans Strangely that seems to align with the growth of our significant National debt problems.
Maybe people had it right for the first ~7,000 years? And we are participating in a failing experiment. (ie Rome revisited)
Maybe we are dooming our citizens to an entitlement mindset that robs them of the benefits of Self Reliance. Steals from them a portion of their motivation to strive to be better and work harder. And the drive for or obsession with disciplined saving. I mean why work, improve or save if THEY are going to take care of me?
Maybe a little fear/pain and natural consequences does help people learn and behave better. I know I remember my most painful lessons best. Remember that I think some serious consequences are necessary to help the American People relearn their Strengths.
G2A Recession not a bad thing
Now, was the recession deep enough to change the culture of America's citizens back to their work hard, save hard and self reliant ways. Or did we borrow our way out of it, and pay too much out in Social Programs and Unemployment?
Thereby preventing the necessary significant discomfort, and preventing the lesson from being learned. If we did not learn... The past will likely repeat itself with even more intensity, until we can not afford to borrow our way out of it.
The good news is that we have one incredible military... I mean how are our lenders going to collect?
"Maybe we are dooming our citizens to an entitlement mindset that robs them of the benefits of Self Reliance."
I think at some point we decided that people were entitled to a decent quality of life and shouldn't have to beg for it. In some countries, third world countries, begging itself is an industry which borders on organized crime. The movie "Slumdog Millionaire" comes to mind. Maybe India has the right idea about that.
It is true. We are moving away from the concept of entitlement. You see it here and elsewhere. We are becoming increasingly comfortable with the idea that if you can't afford health care, you shouldn't receive it. Or if you do, it's because you begged for it, and some nice person found you worthy. There won't be a death panel making these decisions, because there won't be a decision made. It will just be something that doesn't happen.
We are the richest country in the world, the richest country that the world has ever seen. How, alone among the wealthy countries of the world, did we come to this decision that a portion of our population should not be cared for?
--Hiram
Ironically... That is probably why we are the Richest country, people feel a huge pressure to work and contribute. And those that don't, live a very poor life...
I guess I am ok with that. They make their choices and can deal with the consequences. I have friends at both ends of the income spectrum. Some had the golden spoon and wasted it. Others fought out of the gutter and are successful. That is the miracle of America.
As for the unlucky ones that run into significant health problems, etc through no fault of their own. I am happy to give my 10% to charity, and help when they ask.
I believe Reagan and the supply siders align with the growth of our significant national debt problems. This time a you tube video and a
wiki graph,my first hits in my "history of US national debt" serach, confimed what I thought I knew.
I agree. Looks like cuts and tax increases are needed.
By the way excellent video!!!
Does anyone understand how Clinton made progress against the monster debt?
Maybe Reagan should not have funded Social Security so well or rescued us from the early 80's financial disaster so quickly. (ie borrowed to end the pain)
Maybe Bush II should have kept us out of Afganistan and Iraq. That war stuff is real expensive.
I thought having a conservative (ish) person agree that tax hikes are needed to reduce the deficit would be more rewarding, but instead I find myself looking for other stuff over which to disagree.
So this jumped out at me:
"As for the unlucky ones that run into significant health problems, etc through no fault of their own. I am happy to give my 10% to charity, and help when they ask."
Is charity a realistic solution for the unfortunate? The answer is no. Medicaid currently covers 60 million people and amounts to 8% of federal budget and 16% of state budgets ( I believe that amounts to $ hundreds of billions $.)
Kaiser Family Foundation Brief
One of my silly questions... Don't you ever wonder why we are enabling and supporting people having kids they can not afford? And how this can be a good thing?
"Medicaid covers 1 in 3 children. Most of the 30 million
children covered by Medicaid are in families at or below the poverty level ($22,050 for a family of four)."
"Medicaid covers maternity and prenatal care for low-income women and more than 40% of all births."
Do they not not know what a condom is? And they are pretty darn inexpensive... Especially when compared with a kid.
And remember $22,050 is one $11/hr job... So get over to that turkey processing plant and get a job... (oh yeah... the illegal has it... and that job is probably unacceptable...)
Odds are this is one we will just have to agree to disagree on.
In answer to a silly question ...
I do have a (growing) conservative streak that agrees with much of what you said.....right up to the pt where my bleeding heart takes over (especially when it comes to the kids.) What to about it, now that is a conundrum. Maybe my church class on economic justice will give me insight that I'll pass along.
When the government subsidizes the birth and rearing of children in poverty, guess what we get? More children born into poverty. When we subsidize indolence, paying people to not work (like AFDC and unemployment), we get more indolence. You get more of what you pay for. Remember the old story about the guy who found a beggar on the street corner and gave the guy $20 so that he could get the guy off the street? Only what he really got, the next day, was TWO beggars on the street corner!
That's the problem with government charity, is that it sets no expectations on the recipient other than that they will remain dependent. True charity expects gratitude to manifest itself as an effort to work oneself out of whatever fix they may have found themselves in. Even our local Catholic charities are restricting their temporary housing programs to those who agreed to give up drugs and alcohol and look for work. That is as it should be, and must be. Government handouts as they now exist are simply theft on the one hand and receiving stolen goods on the other.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment