-
Conscripts in a Ponzi Scheme
June 13, 2011 | 127 comments
-
Social Security and the Ghost of Ephram Nestor
April 6, 2011 | 21 comments
-
Dracon for President?
February 22, 2011 | 48 comments
-
Mitch Daniels and the CPAC Moment
February 14, 2011 | 78 comments
-
Getting Serious About Regulations — NOT!
February 2, 2011 | 24 comments
A Further Perspective
The New America Firsters
As opposed to the Government Firsters (and Lasters).
As we mused here a few days ago — in a piece pointing out that deregulation had to begin somewhere — Rome wasn’t burned in a day. (According to the Roman historian Tacitus, the fire, in 64 A.D., actually burned for five and a half days.)
The Republican Study Committee, the caucus of the conservative members of the House of Representatives, has lighted a small fire by drawing up a list of proposed cuts described by an incensed Left, the crowd that always puts government first, as deep, dramatic, and radical. Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center, however, points out, complete with graph, that the cuts will hardly make a dent in the federal deficit.
That may be true, but the collection of proposals is, nevertheless, the most breathtaking Washington had ever seen — until Senator Rand Paul came along with a list of bigger cuts. Not since Ronald Reagan campaigned on abolishing the Department of Education — you’ve seen the hole on Independence Avenue, haven’t you? — had anyone seriously proposed cutting the federal government.
It may be true that eliminating the subsidy for mohair will save, annually, only $1 million, and the USDA Sugar Program, only $14 million, and the International Fund for Ireland, only $17 million.
But those cuts are important for three reasons. They can lead to a change in the culture. They can introduce, if not complete, a lesson of shared sacrifice. And they may remind us that, for a while, we will have to go back to basics.
Central to America’s financial good health is a change in Washington’s culture. Many years ago, the libertarian economist Murray Rothbard proposed denationalizing the lighthouses, partially on the theory that a people debating the merits of denationalizing lighthouses would be less likely to nationalize the steel industry.
Changing America’s culture, so that it will put its financial house in order, will be, distressingly, more challenging than winning World War II. At the height of that second great war, America had twelve million men and women in uniform, of whom seven million were overseas, in harm’s way.
But before America’s entry into that war, it was not apparent to everyone, certainly not to the 800,000 America Firsters, that America had a stake in the struggle being waged in Europe. Then early one December morning a man named Yamamoto made that thinking outmoded.
After Pearl Harbor, the nation knew it had a problem. And knew it would have to make sacrifices to solve it. And, for a time, it would have to go back to basics: America’s superfluities would have to give way to support for its soldiers. In a moment, Admiral Yamamoto had changed America’s culture.
No real progress toward averting the nation’s coming fiscal disaster can be made without changing the culture of entitlements. And no real progress in cutting entitlements can be made without changing the culture of spending.
If we cannot eliminate the $167-million subsidy for the National Endowment for the Humanities, we cannot make changes in Social Security. If we cannot eliminate the Department of Energy’s $530-million program of Weatherization Grants to states, we cannot make changes in Medicare.
And if we cannot make changes in Social Security and Medicare, we will go broke.
Unfortunately, the Republican Study Committee’s culture-changing proposal, which also would eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program, the Ready-to-Learn Television Program, and the death gratuity for members of Congress — stop smiling this instant! — can hardly be described as a “shared sacrifice” or “back to basics” proposal. Getting Americans to understand sacrificing and going back to basics may require leadership from the president. But as we saw in the State of the Union speech, it will not come from this president, tethered by youthful ideology untempered by experience, and that means we may have to wait six more years.
Even as the conservatives in the House of Representatives are listing cuts that will hardly make a dent in the federal deficit, the president, with the support of his Government Firsters, is planning additional spending that will hasten the day of financial reckoning. The inevitable day.
Inevitable because, as the economist Herbert Stein once famously said, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Sooner or later our financial house will have to be put in order. If we don’t do it ourselves, the Chinese may do it for us. Then will we learn what deep, dramatic, and radical really mean.
The Republican Study Committee has tried to start a fire. We cannot know now if it will succeed — succeed in burning away the old ways and making way for new.
If it does not, then when the fire goes out, as it did in Rome after five and a half days, it will be cold. Cold enough, perhaps, finally — but is this what we must hope for? — to be, for the Government Firsters, a modern Yamamoto moment.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (44) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Daniel Oliver
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/07/the-new-america-firsters
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 2.7.11 @ 6:45AM
Tea Party Senator Rand Paul:
"A real discussion about the budget must begin now—our economy cannot wait any longer. For 19 months, unemployment has hovered over 9%. After a nearly $1 trillion government stimulus and $2 trillion in Federal Reserve stimulus, the Washington establishment still believes that we can solve this problem with more federal spending and the printing of more money.
That's ridiculous, and the American people have had enough.
Many in Washington think that a one-year, $500 billion spending cut is too bold. But the attendees at the newly formed Senate Tea Party Caucus say, "Bring on the cuts! And then, bring on more!" My Republican colleagues say they want a balanced-budget amendment. But to have any semblance of credibility we must begin to discuss where we will cut once it passes. My proposal is a place to start. "
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....lenews_wsj
Alan Brooks| 2.7.11 @ 8:30PM
"The New America Firsters" want to put all the funds saved into guns, not butter.
You fool no-one anymore.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.7.11 @ 8:05AM
I have been posting here a long time. I have often predicted a "Yamamoto moment".......an "event" that will change everything.
Please. Be prepared, and be alert.
Melvin| 2.7.11 @ 1:05PM
I know Ken, I'll guess I go back to thinkin about Mike's Left handed purple lipstick wearing Columbian lesbians.
Waz, that the cats or the Columbians?
martin j smith| 2.7.11 @ 8:06AM
WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM: OF COURSE OBAMA WILL BE A GOVERNMENT FIRSTER. THAT IS WHO OBAMA IS-- But in his case he is a ME firster.
More importantly I think his unconsititutional behavior such as with regard to lifting bans on oil drilling such as his ignoring the recent court decsion on Obamacare etc. I am really puzzles by the lack of action being taken to deal with Obama's behaviors. Until Obama is personally confronted ( that is legally ) there will be no change with this guy. Please get it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
loulou| 2.7.11 @ 12:17PM
Why does Obama ignore the Constitution with impunity?? The spineless ones are afraid of Black riots, thay's why.
Nunya| 2.7.11 @ 1:11PM
I don't buy it. Presidents, Judges, and the Congress have been ignoring the Constitution for decades, Obozo's not the first--though he may be the worst. I have no fear of "black riots", I think that's just hyperbole.
Pigletrios| 2.8.11 @ 2:15PM
Althought Presidents, Judges, and the Congress have been ignoring the Constitution for decades, we have also been largely ignoring them to such a degree that we are reaching the penacle of ruin. And why is that? Well because "I doesn't affect me" .
Melvin| 2.7.11 @ 8:16AM
The American people, when tasked with something of National Security or domestic emergency will rise to the occasion and do whatever it takes to accomplish the task at hand.
But we do not enjoy be trifled with by inept professional politicians who never let a good crisis go to waste.
So far the last two administrations have conducted themselves like the fire chiefs of a Chinese fire drill of crisis, after crisis, after crisis. Then come to find out the, "Crisis," wasn't really a crisis after all, it was just a political tactic.
Politicians and appointed bureaucrats need to stop yelling, "Fire" because there will be a time that a bonafide crisis will arise and the American public will turn over and go back to sleep.
MikeD| 2.7.11 @ 8:56AM
OK Gang; Repeat after me: WE ARE BROKE. WE HAVE NO MONEY. WE ARE BORROWING MORE THAN WE CAN EVER PAY BACK! IF WE DON'T CUT OUR SPENDING THE CHICOMS WILL DO IT FOR US. WE ARE BROKE. WHAT PART OF THAT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
Now, repeat that every five minutes and tell everybody you know. It we ran our homes and businesses like the federal government does; we'd soon be bankrupt at home and out of business and in jail for theft at work. That is the unvarnished truth.
We can't even afford the "Must Have at Any Cost" items, much less studies why left handed Colombian Lesbians prefer purple lipstick on their cats instead of pink. WE ARE BROKE.
'NUFF SAID.
Melvin| 2.7.11 @ 10:17AM
Oooo, yummy, Columbian Lesbians, left handed ones to.
This was just a humorous jibe at your comment Mike, I just couldn't resist myself.
Occam's Tool| 2.7.11 @ 1:37PM
Sorry, Mike, but the research on lipstick has been done, sort of. At least by researchers at British Columbia:
'“I’d only give it up when I’m desperately ill in the hospital. And even then I’d like my lipstick to be nearby.”
A new study has found older women wear lipstick to boost their self-confidence and signal to others they are still in charge.
Laura Hurd Clarke and Andrea Bundon of the University of British Columbia interviewed 36 women on their use of cosmetics. The women ranged in age from 71 to 93 years of age and came from different backgrounds.
The researchers found that lipstick was by far the most frequently and consistently used cosmetic.
The findings were published in the Journal of Women & Aging (Vol. 21, No. 3, 2009)."
Sorry, man. Hopefully, the Canadians paid for it.
MikeD| 2.8.11 @ 8:09AM
But what about the poor pigs? You totally 'dissed' them with your discrimatory exclusion of them. Oh, the Horror! How must they feel about being forgotten?
Consertive View| 2.7.11 @ 9:15AM
Change of Culture
A change of culture over spending is not the change of culture that is required. What is required is a change in the culture of power. Understand, every dime Congress can no longer spend is a dimes worth of power that Congress no longer has.
Power for powers sake is the strongest driving force of humanity, stronger than sex, money or family. Some humans will chase after power before they will a wife, a mistress or fortune. To change the culture of power in Congress will be all but an impossible task.
Let us suppose that one Congressman is chairman of the House widget commity. Let us further suppose that Congress decides to cut all funding for widgets. As soon as that funding is cut, that Chairman is out of his job. He is no longer addressed as Mister Chairman. He no longer has the power to get everyone who uses widgets to vote for him, he no longer has control over the funding for widgets. In short he has lost power.
A change of culture in Congress isn't going to solve any problem any time soon. What is necessary is to change the culture of Americans. We, the average joe, the guy who wakes up in the morning, kisses his wife, tells his son to do well in school, and goes off to work needs to realize that until he assumes the power that is rightfully his own he is at the mercy of a mercyless Congress. Only when we rise up, and vote the power hungry out, and put average joes in, joes who will work for the public, not themselves, does this country have a chance.
You are not going to be able to cut funding for the arts, or for education, or cut back funding for other Federal programs until you can convince those that have power to give it up, or toss them out. And to get them to give it up, my friend would be harder to do than convince a potentate to surrender his harem.
GavInTucson| 2.8.11 @ 1:00AM
"Only when we rise up, and vote the power hungry out, and put average joes in, joes who will work for the public, not themselves, does this country have a chance."
That's the dilemma. These days, most people think of politicians that are "working for the public" as those politicians that are bringing home to the bacon (other people's money) to them, the constituents.
When most people say they want the government to cut spending, what they really mean is any spending that doesn't affect them personally. If you're a politician, try advocating reforming social security (or medicare) in a district heavily populated by seniors. Try advocating cutting the defense budget in a district heavily populated by military personnel. Try advocating re-reforming Welfare in a predominately poor district. You'd be a one-term politician in a heartbeat.
You're absolutely correct that a fundamental change has to occur in the thought process of the average American. I just don't see it happening as most Americans are just as addicted to the government crack (other people's money) as the politicians.
They advocate cutting spending in programs that don't affect their cut of the government pie.
Whitey O'Carr Kennedy Dukakis | 2.7.11 @ 9:24AM
Do it! Any program that can be eliminated will be a victory! Remember the left will always settle for half a loaf that remains in existance for ever instead of a complete victory. Also, remember to explain the original reason why the program came into existence in the first place. The final point to bring up are the laws that the program is enacted from. The public should have a passing reference to the laws that created the program with.
Ken in Tyler| 2.7.11 @ 9:48AM
MikeD is absolutely correct. Not only are we broke but we HAVE BEEN broke for years. The Founders saw clearly what would happen to our Republic once the people realized they could vote themselves money from the treasury. Compound the madness with a policy allowing banks to consider a promise-to-pay contract as an asset which can be bundled and sold as an "investment", and our fate was sealed. The only way the ship is kept afloat now is the unrestricted printing of fiat currency which is based on debt rather than wealth. There is no way out without severe pain which neither politicians nor voters have the courage to face.
"We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver, no sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors and a ruined people." Daniel Webster
NeilBJ| 2.7.11 @ 10:25AM
I agree with what you are saying. The number one issue with me is the fact that our economy is based on a fiat money system and its manipulation by our "wise" overlords.
We should call fiat money what it is: counterfeit money. Until we get back to an honest and moral money system there is no hope.
Every monetary unit in circulation -- I specifically avoid using the word "dollar" -- must represent a tangible contiribution of goods and services to the economy. If that monetary unit does not represent a tangible contribution to the economy it is absolutely worthless. This also rules out fractional reserve banking. Banks cannot be allowed to lend money they don't have.
That monetary unit should be a specific weight of gold and we should not call it a dollar.
I have come up with a thought question that I hope simplifies the issue.
If you were marooned on an island with virtually no hope of rescue, would you rather be marooned with (a) one billion dollars; or (b) nine other people?
Ben Bernanke would choose (a).
GavInTucson| 2.8.11 @ 1:48AM
There are pro-con arguments to be made for both the fiat money system and one based in tangible assets such as gold (we've used both standards since 1913).
The fundamental issue is that we've placed the value of either into the hands of a handful of unelected bureaucrats in the Federal Reserve.
Prior to 1913, we've dabbled a couple of times with the idea of a central bank -- once on the gold standard, and once without. Both instances led to inflation and the people revolted, leading to the abolition of the idea of a central bank.
The supply of gold held in reserve can be manipulated just as easily as the supply of fiat money. The fundamental difference is who's doing it -- an elected Congress (per the Constitution), or a bunch of unelected bankers.
An elected Congress wouldn't dare screw with the buying power of John Q. Citizen, lest they be voted out on a rail (and they didn't during the times they were in control). Unelected bureaucrats, on the other hand, don't care because the Congress is now totally beholden to them and their lobbying power.
The standard to which money is valued really hasn't changed -- less is more and more is less, whether it be gold or fiat money (supply and demand). What's changed, starting in the early 20th century, is the transition from a democratic market based money system into a centrally planned, command and control system where unelected bureaucrats are pulling all the strings, shielded from the public, controlling the supply of money not to mention dictating interest rates.
richard ryan| 2.7.11 @ 10:05AM
This ridiculous game of chicken with entitlement spending makes me sick. Sure, the democrats are spineless, thoughtless, empty-headed fools, but it is only the ignorance of the electorate that allows them to get away with it. As soon as conservatives make the first move on SS/Medicare, the left will scream about how evil GOP is starving grandmothers. Republicans need to start a massive information campaign on entitlements ASAP or they will be run over by the media.
russel| 2.7.11 @ 10:50AM
Agreed . Since the senators were given popular vote , they give away money to get re-elected . Money to the give-me's , the panhandleling lazy who should not be allowed to vote . This revolving door is why the senators were held to their respective states , till the 13 amm. was enacted . A vicious circle that I'm afraid will require another Yamamoto moment to break free from .
russel| 2.7.11 @ 10:51AM
17 th amm. Pardon .
loulou| 2.7.11 @ 3:25PM
Actually, it's the Republicans who are spineless and timid. They're terrified of not being loved by the Washington elite. It's the Dems who are ruthless and go after what they want--regardless of legality or ethics.
Nancy in NC| 2.7.11 @ 11:21AM
Can you imagine the average present day American dealing with rationing and shortages such as we had in WWII? People go nuts during bad weather and clean out the stores.
We are in a heap of trouble, folks. Our dollar is not the worth the paper it is written on, and we have an administration that is dying to spend even more. How many more QE's can we handle?
RichTex| 2.7.11 @ 11:27AM
A change in culture is indeed what we need. If small spending cuts are all we can manage to get through the Senate and survive without being vetoed, that’s at least a start and a beginning in bringing about that change.
Think about it as being the equivalent of the invasion and liberation of Grenada. In the grand scheme of things, Grenada is just a pleasant, little Caribbean island, not all that important in and of itself. But, President Reagan’s decision to liberate it from Communism was a huge change in the way we fought the Soviet Union. No more would we tacitly accept the Brezhnev Doctrine that once a country became Communist, it would forever remain Communist. Jimmy Carter may have been comfortable with that, but Reagan certainly wasn’t. And it gave those behind the Iron Curtain the hope that they might someday see liberty for themselves and their children.
The same with Big Government. Once we begin to trim it, even if at first just around the edges, the easier it will become to cut it more and more. The struggle to revert back to Constitutional government might be long, and many of us might not live to see it accomplished, but it must happen and must begin somewhere.
Curly Smith| 2.7.11 @ 11:50AM
As Churchill would now say "Never have so few stolen so much from so many".
The average citizen would see no impact from cutting government by 50%. Our problem arises from industries that exist solely for taxpayer (or ratepayer) subsidies. The entire alternative energy boondoggle is but one example. You could make an convincing argument that ethanol was a good idea initially when we had surplus corn going to waste and a pilot project was launched to determine if it could cost effectively be turned to fuel. As the Department of Agriculture runs farming such a project had to be federally funded. But, as with all government teats, the pilot project became a non-competitive, resource draining industry that exists to enrich a select group of companies.
The entire "de-economy" does nothing but waste resources extracted from the economy. It transfers wealth from the productive to the non-productive by creating a non-competitive uneconomic government mandated monopoly. It creates artificial demand that it then satisfies with artificial supply. If it weren't run by the government it'd be criminal.
Nunya| 2.7.11 @ 1:31PM
Very well said, and spot on. If it wasn't the government, it would be criminal.
Ned| 2.7.11 @ 11:57AM
I (still) prefer and suggest "The Clancy Option" to solving the problem that is Congress. That involves a disgruntled pilot, a 747 and occurs during the State of the Union "speech", when all the low-lifes, glad-handers, and money-grubbers are in one place.
Melvin| 2.7.11 @ 12:30PM
Well people, it looks like business as usual with the Republican controlled Congress. The public is being led to believe that the Republicans are proposing 70 billion in reduced spending, but as usual that number is false and the real number is 35 billion dollars.
Furthermore there is no more spending cuts being proposed for this fiscal year.
And to throw dog squeeze into the face of the Tea Party, the Republican leadership is leaning extra heavily upon the Tea Party Freshman to keep their mouths shut.
Hmmm, Hope and Change has failed us and now it looks like the Congressional Republican Leadership has failed us as well.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.7.11 @ 12:58PM
Melvin, settle down, boy. (grin)
Every now and then Clinton's guy on newsmax (can't think of his name) wrote an important article today. I hope you will read it re entitlements.
Ken (Old Texican)| 2.7.11 @ 1:02PM
Melvin...newsmax ...Dick Morris
Melvin| 2.7.11 @ 1:06PM
I know Ken, I'll guess I go back to thinkin about Mike's Left handed purple lipstick wearing Columbian lesbians.
Waz, that the cats or the Columbians?
Melvin| 2.7.11 @ 1:37PM
Dick Morris's article makes sense. But answer this. Let us suppose for example this is all part of Paul Ryan's and others road-map.
Would it not be prudent to get this message out to the rank and file Republicans? To keep the natives from getting restless?
For example, your going to move your company clear across the United States, being CEO your going to inform your subordinates so when the Company picks up and move's it does so with fluidity in an orchestrated direction.
Maybe there is too much information out there for a person to asborb, but it does seem that the Republican leadership is too tight-lipped, and certain Republicans tend to antagonize members of the Tea Party.
jgo| 2.7.11 @ 2:39PM
What's with this ineffective, namby-pamby "make changes" stuff?! We need to ELIMINATE the unconstitutional Socialist Insecurity Abomination, Medicare, Medicaid, and National Socialist Health Care Perversion/PP&ACA;/HCERA/Obamacare. It is grossly impolite to initiate force and fraud against innocent people.
"My proposal is a place to start."
There's much more to be done: elimination of income extortion, elimination of the Federal Reserve inflation machine, sending control of education and health care and energy back down from the federal to state to local governments and finally to individuals. It's a long journey. Let us stop dilly-dallying and set out at a measured, sustainable pace.
Marc Jeric| 2.7.11 @ 2:49PM
A real patriotic Congress would eliminate several complete departments: Education, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce, Department of Interior...We should stop all old subsidies to industries...UN should be abandoned...All NATO American troups should be recalled from Europe...
I am out of breath - please feel free to add...
Marc Jeric| 2.7.11 @ 2:51PM
Sorry...I forgot a very important thing: outlaw all government employees unions on the basis of RICO laws, as being conspiracies against the people.
Christopher Landrum| 2.7.11 @ 4:34PM
This is the best cheerleading for fiscal responsibility I've heard in a long time.
Unfortunately, cheerleaders don't win games--and they don't make for qualified coaches either.
shipley130| 2.7.11 @ 7:46PM
Meanwhile, countries like Switzerland is enjoying the fruits of our death to keep the wolf at bay.
The refudiator MD| 2.7.11 @ 9:06PM
you guys are thinking about this all wrong. We print money for nothing & send it overseas & get tangible goods in exchange. We need to keep doing this until the currency is almost completely worthless. Then we issue a new currency & start it all over again. A balanced federal budget or a reduced trade deficit is mathematically impossible due to the nature of money creation.
Richard Baker| 2.8.11 @ 12:48AM
The problem is a national mentality that says that your money and fortune aren't yours but belong to all. That has created the smoke which will lead to a burned out cinder. That this mentality builds nothing but misery and suffering everywhere it has been tried proves nothing to the pie-in-the-sky utopians.
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 5:50AM
That may be true, but the collection of proposals is, nevertheless, the most breathtaking Washington had ever seen -- until Senator Rand Paul came along with a list of bigger cuts.
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 4:10AM
is good
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 4:40PM
So far the last two administrations have conducted themselves like the fire chiefs of a Chinese fire drill of crisis, after crisis, after crisis. Then come to find out the, "Crisis," wasn't really a crisis after all, it was just a political tactic.