Should government spending be cut in half?

No

1 of 2

by Chris Messner

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Government: It's a topic that really gets my blood boiling. Government spending? That's a topic that makes me want to chew nails and spit bullets.

Love him or not, you've got to give Uncle Sam his due. When it comes to government programs, money, and spending, Uncle Sugar is both a master juggler and accomplished prestidigitationist, simultaneously!

In fact, his act is so mesmerizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans have either given up hope of ever seeing Uncle Sam get his fiscal house in order, or were never interested in the first place.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of taxpayer advocacy groups that claim to be putting pressure on the government to cut waste and eliminate obsolete or redundant programs. Premier among them is Citizens Against Government Waste. They are fighting the good fight. I admit, when CAGW announces a victory for taxpayers, I am momentarily encouraged that sanity will, miraculously, return to Congress as it considers new programs and appropriates funds.

That encouragement is always short-lived. Just watch the news and listen to the likes of Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Byrd and Harry Reid talk about what we "need". There is no pretense of fiscal responsibility in Congress. There is no connection between actual government revenue and actual government spending. There are precious few people who want to solve the problem of government over-spending, and there is precious little they can do to solve it. There's a great deal of talk about a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, or a so-called "lock-box" for Social Security, but there is never any action, to Congress' everlasting shame.

Some federal bean-counter keeps track of the national debt, but to what end? Although we know the cumulative national debt is now somewhere around $9.5 trillion, what does it mean? And, is there any hope of that number getting smaller, much less being totally repaid? No, there isn't.

The "system" is a behemoth that cannot be cut down to size. Through the valiant efforts of CAGW and similar groups, small battles will continue to be won, but the war on out-of-control government spending was lost decades ago, when deficit spending became the norm. Let me point out, once again, that I was born in the early '50s, and, during my lifetime, there have only been 8 years in which Uncle Sam spent less money than he took in. Four of those years occurred recently, during the Clinton Administration.

So, should government spending be cut in half? The question is moot. There is a greater chance of Osama bin Laden being elected President than federal spending being reduced by even one dollar.

Nevertheless, the answer is a no-brainer: "No".

Why not? Well, for one thing, it isn't necessary. If Congress would just eliminate obsolete or redundant programs, a lot of wasteful spending would be eliminated, and the saved funds could be redirected. For another thing, thanks to FDR, his "New Deal", and the process known as gradualism, we're now into the fourth or fifth generation of Americans who are used to their money being funneled through Washington, and who believe that government has a right to grab its cut of our earnings off the top. Therefore, there will be no reduction in overall government spending, let alone "sacred cow" programs, such as Social Security or Medicare, until Uncle Sam has no other choice.

Cuts will have to be made, at some future date, of course, because of the Ponzi-scheme construction of the largest entitlement programs. The math is simple: The number of people who collect benefits from these programs is growing and will continue to grow, while the number of taxpayers whose taxes support these programs is shrinking and will continue to shrink.

It didn't have to be this way. If Uncle Sam had set the money aside and invested it wisely, the programs would have been self-sustaining, and we would have avoided the hand-wringing about raising tax rates, retirement ages, and whether or not there is actually any money in the programs' trust funds (there isn't).

But it was never Uncle Sam's intention to be prudent or honest in his handling of our money. It was his intention simply to get his hands on a great deal more money, using Social Security, and, later, Medicare, as pretexts for collecting a lot more of our earnings. And, while those programs have truly helped tens of millions of people, despite the staggering cost in fraud, waste and abuse, don't kid yourself into thinking that the government "cares" about us. It's about vote-buying, wealth redistribution, government entrenchment, and behavior control, not love.

Although, on your pay statement, "income" tax is separate from "Medicare" tax or "Social Security" tax, when the money gets to Washington, it all goes down the very same black hole. It has always been that way, and there is no incentive for Congress to segregate payroll tax revenue from income tax revenue. Doing so would GREATLY reduce the amount of money Congress has to spend. And since Congress wouldn't spend less, they would borrow more, so annual budget deficits would be much larger and the total national debt would grow much more quickly.

It works like this: You pay $10 in income tax and $10 in Social Security/Medicare tax. Congress spends your $10 income tax money almost before its even counted. Poof, it's gone. Then, they use, say, $8 of the SS/Medicare money to pay current SS/Medicare beneficiaries. You might think the remaining $2 would be saved for future SS/Medicare obligations, but it isn't. Congress grabs the $2, spends it on whatever, and then puts a $2 IOU into the SS/Medicare "Trust Funds". The Trust Funds consists of nothing except those IOUs, which are special, government-use-only bonds. Program officials consider those bonds the rock-solid foundation of the programs (everyone knows that US government bonds are good as gold, right?), but what the bonds REALLY represent are program funds that were spent on something besides the program. Worse yet, those bonds MUST be redeemed by FUTURE government revenues. So it seems you're paying TWICE to support those programs, doesn't it? That's the way I see it.

The government has never, at least not in my lifetime, been the least bit concerned about being a good, honest steward of the money it lifts from us every payday. I don't expect that to change any time soon. You shouldn't, either. Your only recourse is to pepper your Senators and Representative with letters, and maybe join and support a taxpayer advocacy group, such as CAGW. So, fork it over, and keep movin' so the behemoth doesn't step on you.

Learn more about this author, Chris Messner.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.