Let Us All Sacrifice to Balance the Budget
By Anthony Gregory • Friday July 22, 2011 12:07 PM PDT • 7 Comments
We’re often told that the budget can’t be cut without all of us sacrificing. This is used as a rationale to raise taxes. But it need not be that way.
After all, aren’t we also told that everyone benefits from the government? Surely the poor do, or so we hear. And the middle class? Of course we all are blessed to have the federal government be as active and large as it is. That’s what it’s mainly there for, all the politicians tell us.
The rich too must benefit immensely from the government. Why else are they always browbeaten into “giving back”? Surely if society is all in this together, certainly if the government represents some sort of proxy of the collective will, then when do-gooders talk of giving back to society, they at least in large part are implying that the rich do in fact benefit, in great deal, from the government.
Indeed, we are reminded that every group benefits from the government. If not for government, workers would toil in factories for 20 hours a day at less than minimum wage, and businesses would collapse amid the economic instability caused by their own lack of foresight and greedy orientation toward the present. If not for government, very few would enjoy a higher education, a horrible fate that would plague all of society. Without government, parents would have no one to help them raise their kids, and kids themselves would be at a loss, and childless adults would have no future to look forward to. If not for government, the West would be without sufficient support of its agriculture, the South would suffer from lack of economic protection, the North would lose its industrial advantages, the East would be deprived of much of its cultural lankmarks, and the whole middle of the country would have inadequate institutional linkages to the rest of America.
Without government, no one but the richest Americans would be able to afford a home, while banks simultaneously signed the poor up to high risk mortgages to get them into homes they couldn’t afford. Without government, everyone would be doomed to a lifetime of tobacco addiction, whereas tobacco farmers would be missing the subsidies that keep these great Americans afloat. Without government big corporations would have no one to bail them out and small businesses would never be able to compete. Without government police wouldn’t have any jobs, criminals would be missing their chance at rehabilitation, and the rest of us would suffer. Without government Americans would be threatened by foreigners and foreigners wouldn’t be liberated by American bombs and military occupations. We’d be at constant war or would lose the chance to fight for freedom, doomed as we would be to live at peace. Muslims would be subject to hate crimes and the rest of us would be attacked by Muslims.
Without government immigrants wouldn’t be able to go on welfare and American citizens would have nothing protecting them from immigrants going on welfare. Without government young people would have no role models, the elderly would have no voice, and adults in the middle would lack a safety net.
Without government car manufacturers would all go belly up and car buyers would have no one to protect them from the manufacturers. Without government there would be no money for scientific research; all that would be funded is the arts that appeal to the masses. Yet there would be no money in the arts since only the hard sciences would be profitable. Consumers wouldn’t get what everyone clearly wants from the market, while at the same time they would only be offered what was made to suit popular demand.
No one would deliver our letters and we would be flooded with junk mail if not for government. Our phone lines wouldn’t operate and we’d get telemarketing calls on those lines that don’t operate all day and night. There would be no roads, and yet if they did exist, they’d be congested always with drunk drivers and lunatics. There would no longer be any advanced industry at all, and the advanced industry that ceased to exist would spew poison into the air without limit. No one would have anything to eat and obesity would reign supreme. No one could afford pharmaceuticals and everyone would be addicted to prescription drugs.
All classes of people would suffer, since government is obviously there for the own good of all classes. It is fair to say we all benefit from government, so here’s a plan to make us all sacrifice relatively proportionally, a plan to address the budget shortfall: Cut the government across the board in one fell swoop. Indeed, cut everything by 50% just for good measure. It’s the even-handed thing to do.
Tags: Budget and Tax Policy, The State 
I an totally with you on this.
Donnie Harold Harris | Jul 22, 2011 | Reply
A fifty percent cut would one swell foop. Thumbs up!
D. Frank Robinson | Jul 25, 2011 | Reply
Sounds like we would be better off without such a big Government!!
Danal J Charlton | Jul 25, 2011 | Reply
Anthony,
I guess the question I have for you is this. Do you really think that we can significantly cut expentitures and reduce the size and scope of government without some form of shared sacrifice?
It seems that many of the things you cite in your satirical manner are things that indeed have constituencies and for whom numerous individuals and groups with fight, spend, bribes, and cajole to be kept or prioritized.
What is missing from the public debate on the size of government, the means for dealing with debt and deficit, is an honest discussion of what government should be doing, or better yet what do we want government to do and what are we willing to pay for it.
Let’s look at entitlements for a moment. The two largest entitlement – Social Security and government healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid) account for about 40% of all Federal spending (according to the tax caluclator from http://www.thirdway.org). Yet according to a recent poll (I heard this on the radio so cannot source it) only about 40% of people even acknowledge that these entitlements are government assistance. So if 2 in 5 people won’t even accept that the major government entitlements are indeed government entitlements, how can you possbily hope to have a legitimate discussion about continuing to support, i.e. pay for, a big government to collect those taxes and send those checks?
Second let’s consider regulations. I hear many people complain about too much regulation, I have even heard that requiring professional licenses is a violation of liberty and should be abolished. However, if you don’t have say a professionally licenses surveyor, (the licensing certifies that the individual has demonstrated a level of professional competence needed to enggage in the profession independently. The professional competence is generally defined by private professional organizations with licensing exams either accpeted by or administered by the State) how can you hope to adequately claim real property legitimately and thus how can you enforce property rights, which are ultimately the backbone of our culture, society, and economy.
Ultimately, the Federal Government is indeed too large, too enbedded in our lives, and we need to find a way to reduce it, but we also need to first understand what that means, and more importantly we need to have a consensus that it actually is so. Otherwise, it is just a charade in which we are increasing kept in the dark with promises or even more programs and lower taxes.
Frank | Jul 25, 2011 | Reply
Dear Frank, I think what we have IS the consensus. And it is a mess. Do you want “an honest discussion of what government should be doing”? Good luck. It isn’t about dems or reps; or rather it IS. They are the problem. If you want to have that honest discussion, look into your soul and first decide, are you a collectivist, or an individualist? American society (with its “constituencies”) has been thoroughly collectivized by the state’s education system, the politicians, corporatists, altruists(with other people’s money), et al. People have not been taught to think but they have been made into constituents, who want their slice of Paul. We are well down the path that all statist societies have travelled– to disintegration, and failure. Do you think the central planning thing will work if we just come to a consensus?
Anthony, another good piece. Satire is appropriate, but I do wish you would just solve our problems and come up with a plan for our lives.
Voice | Jul 26, 2011 | Reply
Medicare and Social Security payments should be paid based on need. if a person or family have enough money to live on and pay regular health insurance without these payments, then we should move them to those who cannot provide for themselves, like the children, elderly, and disabled.
Earmarks and pork-barrel spending is billions of dollars, going to such projects as a museum for old Las Vegas signs – $1.8 million, upkeep on an unused monkey house – $175 million, Teaching South African men how to wash their privates – $824 thousand, Statue of a bus – $224 thousand , total earmarks alone is $11.5 Billion.
22% of all federal government programs have no positive impact and they cost us $123 Billion. Health care fraud is $60 Billion, Katrina payment fraud is another $@ Billion, Washington spent $2.6 million to teach CHINESE prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job, $350 million to kill babies through abortion – especially when Planned Parenthood has more than enough private funding to do their murders plus what they have been getting from 52 million women to kill their babies 0only 8% may be needed following a rape or incest or a real medical emergency). Then there are consistent over-payments to government/military contractors that overcharge for everything. How about the subsidies that are outdated?
We could save $100 Billion right now if the duplicate and outdated programs and bureaus were cut.
WHO IS GOING TO STOP THE WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS???
Carol Friendly | Jul 26, 2011 | Reply
Anthony,
If you think what we now have, masquerading as a discussion, is a consensus, then maybe you ought to come down out of that ivory tower of yours, because clearly the thin air has damaged your ability to think clearly.
The point I made is that you cannot hope to make any progress on reducing the scope of government, until people actually see government as the problem and are willing to give up the things they get from government (sacrifice) that they have come to expect.
Look at the nature of the current discussion, everyone wants to “cut” but what exactly are they going to cut. Even the people on your site and the FB postings call out items that amount to pocket change. The only way to truly scale government back (which is what we need to be talking about not just cutting spending or complaining about federal worker pay) is to talk seriously about priorities. However, as long prople think cutting foreign aid or reducing politican pay will solve our problems the discussion itself is a waste of time.
Thus, if the bulk of society decide – Yes. we want old people welfare, and yes we want to have a giant standing military, and yes we want to fight wars all over the world, and yes we want government subsidized healthcare. Then politicans need to stop taking No Tax pledges and leading people into the belief that all of these things are possbile without paying for them. Maybe, just maybe, if the Republicans would stop taking special interest pledges long enough and let the Democrats raise taxes they might help people appreciate the costs associated with their expectations for government handouts, and maybe, just maybe we can appreciate the true cost of expanding government. Unfortunately, a 1.5 trillion deficit doesn’t really impact people on a daily basis, but raise their taxes by 10 or 15% and that should have an impact, then we can start talking about what we get rid of and what we can stop paying for.
Ultimately, it is the same way most people handle their personal finances. You want that new TV, then you first need to figure out where the money is coming from. Unfortunately, our government doesn’t do that and the people allow the government to get away with it, and no amount of satirical whining will change that.
Let people feel pain, let them sacrifice – by force if needed – and then we can get down to the serious business of making some significant changes.
Otherwise the discussion and those in their ivory tower of economic philosophy are simply irrelevant.
Frank | Jul 28, 2011 | Reply