The American Spectator : Return to Beverly Hills

Text Size

Return to Beverly Hills

By Ben Stein on 8.1.11 @ 6:09AM

Easier done than any return to fiscal sanity.

Saturday
"Re-entry is hard," as my pal, Phil DeMuth, says about returning from vacations. Amazingly hard this time because someone at the TSA at Spokane airport two days ago took my wallet, which had been in my shoe, and jammed it into my Dopp Kit, zipped up my Dopp Kit (a toiletries kit, usually black leather, this one was given to me by Jimmy Kimmel) and then I freaked out that I did not have my wallet. I also thought I would miss my plane.

By checking the videos, the kind TSA supervisor, Ms. O'Neel, and the kind Spokane Airport Police Sergeant Kempf at the airport found my wallet just as I was about to board the Southwest plane without (as I imagined) my wallet. That's a scary feeling. However, I felt deep relief and gratitude when they found the darned thing. I kissed Ms. O'Neel's hands. There was literally no money in the wallet but lots of credit cards.

A few minutes earlier, I had been given some forbearance by the Spokane Airport Police to leave my car at the curb for a few minutes to allow me to help my wife, who was feeling dizzy, to get to a seat. They are thoughtful people.

Then, an uneventful flight home, although a sad homecoming, inasmuch as the magnificent Brigid was not there to greet me. There is a Brigid-shaped hole in my heart now forever.

Yesterday, I went over to CBS to record some deathless words about the budget crisis, then to CNN to say some more deathless live words about the budget crisis. As I was talking to the camera, in a tiny little studio, I remembered my brilliant father's idea about the concept of "cap, cut, and balance."

Among many other ideas, Herbert Stein thought that there should be a "full employment surplus" budgetary policy. This plan would have balanced budgets when the government was at or near full employment (which in those days was thought to be about 6%). At higher unemployment rates, there would be a deficit so that the government (the taxpayers, really) could afford unemployment benefits, continue to maintain a strong defense, and provide for the poor. At unusually low unemployment, say 4%, there would be a surplus. This would be used to pay off the deficits from earlier years.

Frankly, the budget that is balanced over the cycle still seems like a darned fine idea to me. That way you do obeisance to the balanced budget ideal, but leave yourself flexibility in the superheated economy or the cool economy.

My father also thought the whole thing would be suspended in times of war, when we would have to run large deficits.

I wonder what the deficit hawks plan to do about national defense at this point anyway. Surely they don't think that low taxes are more important than a powerful defense. I hope they don't think that, anyway. "Defense is greater than opulence," my father used to say, quoting (of course) Adam Smith. How true that is. I am reminded of a famous brief conversation between Lady Astor and Winston Churchill in the early bad days of World War II. "Why are you fighting so hard against the Germans?" asked Lady Astor.

"If we stop, you'll find out," said the Greatest Man Who Ever Lived.

(I am paraphrasing here and may have many parts of the conversation wrong.)

Today, Saturday, I am sitting in my sunny office at home in Beverly Hills. I am tired from staying up late watching a very dirty (toilet jokes, not sex) movie with Will Ferrell called "Step Brothers." It is extremely un-PC in that it makes fun of mentally ill people, but it's funny. It reminds me of a LOT of families I know.

Now, I'll go swimming and wonder what is next for this great country. We have gone so far down the road of fiscal insanity that it's hard to know how we will ever find our way home. (Paraphrase from "Can't Find My Way Home," from Eric Clapton.)

About the Author

Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (36) | Leave a comment

Tom| 8.1.11 @ 7:30AM

Close cover before striking match.

Sam Vaughn| 8.1.11 @ 8:13AM

Good timing. I walked our dogs this a.m., they play chase sticks as I think that we (USA) are on a trajectory towards hardship like nothing we have seen. It took a long time to come to this conclusion, but the numbers don't lie unless it's the numbers being propagandized by the current administration. Unless something comes along to change this trajectory we are witness to the plundering of the USA in front of our very eyes. Every country in the history of the world that ever attempted to spend it's way out of debt suffered disastrously. The bigger the country, the longer it's ignored, the bigger the tragedy.

Notary Sojac| 8.1.11 @ 8:55AM

It's fine to have an adequate defense budget, but without the will to use it decisively against the bad guys who are attacking your country, such a budget has little meaning. For most of the last decade we have had the first but not the second.

Rad Manley| 8.1.11 @ 9:46AM

Ben, you have lost more than your beloved K-9 companion, Brigid. You have lost your mojo, sir, and should stick with your CNN and CBS gigs.

beebop| 8.1.11 @ 6:20PM

True that. What a blow hard he has become. Tin ear. Thoughtless self indulgence when so many are really worried and/or suffering. Who the hell cares? Talk to your family about these issues. Send email. Tweet your Senator. I have clicked this for the last time ....

mames| 8.1.11 @ 10:48PM

Ben is either revealing his true socialist leanings or his cheese has slid off his cracker

Bill| 8.1.11 @ 10:06AM

I don't know who wrote "I Can't Find My Way Home," but it was a Blind Faith song, not just one performed by Eric Clapton.

Bill| 8.1.11 @ 10:08AM

"Can't Find My Way Home," my error. Written by Steve Winwood.

PCC| 8.1.11 @ 10:35AM

The problem with the "defense at all costs" mentality is that it puts in the driver's seat the same idiotic policymakers and military fantasists who gave us the $150 billion (and counting) disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, and we spent about $600 million in the first week alone of the gloriously successful adventure in Libya.

In recent years the US has developed an unhealthy prohibition against expressing any criticism at all of the military, cops and firemen, and anyone else in a uniform who wraps himself in anti-terrorism and the flag. Even the scandalously moronic TSA personnel get a free pass for the most part; how else to explain how a supposedly civilized society allows children and grannies to be "patted down" in the name of "national security"? They're like super-sized Maxwell Smarts, and the entire country not only puts up with this stupidity, but pays for the pleasure!

The point I'm leading up to is, unfortunately, the pro-military, pro-security camp has lost a lot of credibility and no longer commands the unquestioning trust and support of the average American, no matter how many idiotic "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers one can find in the parking lots of suburban malls.

Cabermon| 8.1.11 @ 10:52AM

The "ant like" philosophy of Herbert Stein is brilliant, particularly during the present grasshopper infestation of Washington D.C.

And Ben, a dog will happen to you and wifey, but the hole in your hearts will remain. Our 4 little buddies are loved beyond reason, although the 6 holes in our hearts will remain forever.
Best Regards.

Brian B| 8.1.11 @ 10:53AM

Why is the choice always framed as Guns v Taxes [or butter].
How about Guns [ a legitimate Federal concern] v Spending on education, energy, housing, pensioners, health care, etc [none of them legitimate federal interests]?

gearjammer| 8.1.11 @ 11:06AM

When do guvmint workers and their early gold plated retirements get the axe ?
when do they join soc sec and medicare and 401k ? These are potentially huge money savers. These clerks and jerks have it too good.

Gary B| 8.1.11 @ 7:18PM

Brian B,

[none of them legitimate federal interests] You are 100% correct about this.

The very first act of nearly every DC politician is to violate their oath of office.

Ron Turner| 8.1.11 @ 11:59AM

Ben is spot on. The idiots that think cutting spending when you have high unemployment is a good idea are nuts. Also, modest tax increases on people like Ben make a good deal of sense.

TrueBlue| 8.1.11 @ 12:33PM

Cutting spending by the federal government ALWAYS makes sense. The Fed does not produce anything so any money they spend is taken directly out of the economy, and you don't even get the same amount going back into it because it's so mismanaged.

As for increasing taxes on people with a lot of money... WHY?! Somebody give me a real reason why! Their percentage of income paid is already greater than everyone else, and even if it were the same they would STILL be paying more dollars than the rest of us. Why are there people that pay nothing in taxes at all and STILL receive money "back" from the federal government after tax time? There are only two things that need to be done with the tax code... 1) Simplify it so everyone pays the same percentage, and 2) Close all the loopholes and remove most of the deductions with the exception of charity payments and new child deductions (because continuing our way of life is important).

The only spending he was talking about them not cutting was defense spending, which I wholeheartedly agree with. We can fix our country, but if we don't have the military left to defend it it won't be ours for very long. But the entitlement crud and the plethora of useless agencies need to go.

Gary B| 8.1.11 @ 7:23PM

Getting off the backs of small business owners when you have high unemployment makes much better sense, since they create employment.

And, extracting capital from the private sector and shipping it to Rome never makes sense, unless it's for a Constitutional purpose. What percentage of budget items are Constitutional?

TrueBlue| 8.1.11 @ 7:28PM

I'd have to go over it again, but off the top of my head; Debts and military paychecks, and they're even authorized to withhold military pay if necessary.

Steve A| 8.1.11 @ 12:31PM

Sure thing Ron. If you make 100K / yr & your lovely bride spends 140K / yr, everyone knows trhat what you need to do is call VISA & get the limit on your CC raised (you are maxed out). I mean, seriously, "everybody knows" that less spending would just destroy your wife's "economy."

Stefan Stackhouse| 8.1.11 @ 12:35PM

Mr. Stein:

Your father was quite right. In fact, this scheme is inherent in Keynesian theory, properly understood. Running surpluses in boom times serves as an effective damper against bubble formation, just as sustaining government expenditure levels during downturns serves to dampen those as well. The problem, as we all know too well, is that the so-called Keynesians forget all about running the surpluses during the boom times. To them, that is just an opportunity to run even bigger deficits. There is absolutely nothing even remotely "Keynesian" about running perpetual deficits. The only proper words for it are "foolish" and "idiotic".

I share your sympathies for the defense establishment. However, is it not wise to stop and consider that perhaps we are overdoing it? Is everything that happens in every remote, dusty patch of the globe really a matter of vital national security? Doesn't the whole essence of sound economics boil down to setting priorities and making rational choices? We haven't really been doing the difficult job of defining our priorities and making the hard choices required. It doesn't look like we are really capable of doing this, yet we can't afford not to. We dare not shirk this vital task, yet we are. It does not inspire confidence for our nation's future.

Best regards,

Stefan Stackhouse
Black Mountain, NC

Steve A| 8.1.11 @ 12:47PM

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. You run a company to make your 100K so you go ahead & cut the salary of your top, highest paid, producers by 3% (tax the rich) so you get to keep more & then give it to your lowest productive employees to "stimulate" the growth of your company. (first you churn it through red tape & bureaucrats) The pure genius of these actions rockets your company to the Furtune 500........! Wow, what a deep thinker you are. You should be on the cover of Forbes along with Stein.

Seek| 8.1.11 @ 1:54PM

The greatest transfer of wealth in this country's history has been going on for several decades. Is it from white to black? Good guess, but no. Young to old? Not bad, but no. Private to public sector? Close but no cigar.

No, the biggest transfer of wealth has been from male to female, especially within a marital context. Why are today's American men so wimpy that they can't stand up to their gold-digging wives who busily drive them to the poorhouse or the shrink's couch, while embarking on another shopping spree? Why are we so terrified of our women?

Can someone help me out here?

Gary B| 8.1.11 @ 7:27PM

This is funny. Most good humor springs from the truth.

TrueBlue| 8.1.11 @ 7:29PM

My wife is more fiscally responsible than I am, and I hardly spend anything unless I have to...

Dave| 8.1.11 @ 1:11PM

Mr. Stein is sadly just another would-be tax collector for the welfare state.

He, as so many of our political "leaders," is simply incapable of noting the rank gall of asking for more taxes after witnessing this country's political elite on both sides of the aisle fritter away our hard-earned tax dollars for decades.

Enough! Cut everything except defense and, in fact, spend whatever is necessary to ensure this nation's safety. Burn down the rest! It's time people realize the government isn't there to support you in any way other than defending you from foreign threats and supporting the rule of law.

You can't have anymore of my money Ben. Get used to it.

Robert| 8.1.11 @ 2:33PM

http://tinyurl.com/3dbmmr3

Pat| 8.1.11 @ 2:45PM

Kinda of a weird experience to read contemporary pundits – this author has the Facebook “bore you to death” syndrome; all those who “friended” him must constantly receive the unimportant and dreary details of his life in all their trivial glory. Thanks for sharing – I think.

And, apparently, since nothing can be done about it, the “fiscal insanity” this pundit casually refers to is characterized like the common cold or receiving a parking ticket shortly after the meter expired. We have come to expect nothing more than continuous “insanity” from our government employees, a ho-hum, every day, nothing we can do about it occurrence – “oh, well”, right?

And, even in Beverly Hills, a moribund bunch of politicians going through the motions has become a daily – and accepted – behavior from our Washington D.C. “temps”. Our executive search and hiring process, the one we call voting, is an employment practice used by no other organization within this country, except maybe for the unions, which says a lot in and of itself. A complex, spaghetti mound of laws, regulations and conveniently hiding behind the Constitution has effectively trained citizens to patiently wait until the next election to give our incompetent employees a “bad review” and their walking papers. No matter how much further damage will yet be done, we must wait until the planets are properly aligned in order to correct this “fiscal insanity”. And, like the common cold, there is no cure on the horizon, just suffer through it and try to take better care of ourselves to prevent future recurrences. Oh, well!

TrueBlue| 8.1.11 @ 7:31PM

Actually were completely allowed to kick them out sooner, just so much legal drivel in the way that your average citizen can't afford it.

TrueBlue| 8.1.11 @ 7:31PM

we're*

PGlenn| 8.1.11 @ 9:14PM

B. Stein is by no means arguing that current, extremely high deficits and government spending are acceptable. He's preemptively arguing against a Balanced Budget Amendment, which is a bad idea.

Herbert Stein had the right idea, in theory: surplusses during boom times; balanced budgets during normal full employment; modest deficits during recessions.

It'd be unnecessary to run high deficits during recessions because: A). We've saved up the surplusses for such "rainy days"; B). H. Stein recommended this approach within an overall framework of a limited, "small" government.

It's true that, in reality, many people, especially "progressives"/liberals, make demands on the government to an extent that we end up running deficits even when the economy is strong. But the root cause of the problem is not the lack of a balanced budget amendment, which would apply a rigid, blunt, surface-only policy instrument to deep-rooted problems.

Don| 8.2.11 @ 12:30AM

All that sounds perfectly sound but without some kind of BBA pols will spend surpluses not use it to pay down debt. And what is the world is a 'modest deficit?' And who decides? Herb and Ben lived/live in fantasy worlds, one in DC the other in Hollywood. Unfortunately the rest of us have to live in the real world. The sooner our AAA rating is cut the better since that appears to be the only way things will change. Maybe we do need do destroy the village in order to save it.

T-bag| 8.1.11 @ 11:49PM

Ben, you have lost more than your beloved K-9 companion, Brigid. You have lost your mojo, sir, and should stick with your CNN and CBS gigs.
http://www.summer-products.com

Mojo| 8.1.11 @ 11:53PM

Ben is either revealing his true socialist leanings or his cheese has slid off his cracker.
http://www.jerseys-hats-store.com
http://www.honey-gifts.com

POST American| 8.2.11 @ 1:40AM

--------Wonderful piece.

BTW, everyone have their eyes on the
'Super Congress', a wholly UN-Consitutional
move by our Rockefeller/USURY and EUGENICS
and Globalism 'Right'/'Left' Congress and the Executive.

It's to be a 'Council of 13'.

In other words ---America's FIRST Soviet!

Somehow NOT getting the coverage it deserves
in our Tavistock 'CON-serving' front AS.

Occam's Tool| 8.2.11 @ 10:17PM

I'm going to go very slowly here, Ben, because as a lawyer, you're a retard.

Lower tax rates equal larger economy. lower tax rate on considerably larger economy equals more tax revenues than higher taxes on a smaller economy equals more to spend on defense. More economic size equals larger defense spending being equal to a lower percentage of overall economy equals lower sacrifice.

Read that very carefully, Ben. Or, better yet, staple it to your forehead.