Man made 'entitlements'. Man can unmake 'entitlements', to free us all so we can live.
Man made 'entitlements'. 'Entitlements' are not Endowed By Their Creator. 'Entitlements' are not sacred. Man can un-make 'entitlements'. And stark reality says we had better hurry. The good news is that a dramatic revision of 'entitlements' can both eliminate the annual federal deficit and pay down the national debt--while still keeping faith with our seniors.
Why should we hurry? Why should we care?
Obama's proposed
2011 federal budget would spend
$3.7 trillion ($3.7T). We can also state this in billions, as
$3,700 billion (
$3,700B); this will be important as this essay progresses. Obama's 3.7T in taxing & spending--and money printing - includes a
2011 federal deficit of $1.7T ($1,700B). Obama's proposed spending includes
46% of a budget that is unfunded without borrowing and printing money. Liberals howled when President Bush had wartime budget deficits of $600B to $400B--no where near the HALF THE DEFICIT that Obama wants to reprise in
his deficit spending. And we are now seeing some very dark sides of deficit spending coming 'home to roost'. First, China has increasing leverage in our domestic affairs--and leverage with which to modify and/or silence our international policies. Second, we need growing federal budgets, and increasing personal tax burdens, to fund ever-increasing payments just to pay interest on the federal debt. Third, we now feel sharp inflation from debt worries and from printing 'funny money' at record paces to 'buy down' the debt. Fourth, government intrudes ever more into private financial business, creating intense hesitancy in the marketplace--drying up capital and postponing hiring new employees. Why compete economically, when The Fed is picking winners & losers? Fifth, a burst artificially-induced economic (housing) bubble has put the country in a severe recession that could well be dipping into a depression. Thank you, Barney Frank; your gift keeps on 'giving'. (Slipping into a Depression? After all, official unemployment numbers have been around 10% - but add the long-term 'out of work' and 'I can only get part-time work' situations; now we have unemployment numbers closely approximating our Great Depression's 20%. But where are today's 'food lines'? Look at the never-ending Unemployment Compensation for the people 'lucky' enough to qualify--while still having to borrow ever more money to stay current on monthly bills.)
How do we fix it?
What are the usual suspects, in our national debt arguments? NASA's rockets? Interest on the national debt? Defense? As with the above numbers, let's look at 'the usual suspects' with no agenda-charged hype-- just real numbers taken from Pew Research and our federal government's own Office of Management & Budget (OMB).
Cutting 'return to the moon and on to Mars' programs out of
NASA's $20B annual budget, is an abjectly pathetic excuse to say much and do next-to-nothing about the debt. NASA spending is half of one percent of federal spending; still only barely one percent of the 2011 deficit spending. Besides, cutting NASA merely eliminates powerful seed-technology jobs vital to America's future. And the lack of a powerful space voyage vision merely reduces incentive generally, for our youngsters to seek math, science, & engineering expertise. Taking NASA out of its stock-in-trade, pioneering manned space flight to Moon and beyond, is merely a downward spiral for the nation.
Interest on the national debt is more significant, amounting to about 6% (aprox
$222B) of federal spending. But since $222B is only
13% of the $1,700B 2011 deficit, we cannot blame our deficit on paying
interest on a massive federal debt. True, having to pay interest on a loan is little better than throwing good money after bad (more on this age-old wisdom later), but the interest itself is not enough to have caused our 2011 federal deficit.
OK, national defense. It's considerably bigger. But before discussing numbers, we must address a critical issue: whether national defense is a moral imperative of nations, or merely an optional cost. Trimming a nice ten billion from national defense may, or may not, address the deficit; we'll get to that shortly. A cut of $10B will, however, significantly impact security. It'd terminate a major airplane system (tanker, bomber, cargo, fighter). It'd terminate an aircraft carrier combat group (mobile, quick-reaction, enduring, & sustainable American presence nearly anywhere in the world). It'd pre-empt needed upgrades to a shrinking and long-neglected nuclear weapons triad. It'd cause even more personnel drawdowns--which have suffered personnel cuts already, almost every year since 1992, and hardly made up with President Bush's last-year manning plus-up push. Each of these roughly $10B cuts will only make the USA less secure in a hostile world--and it will definitely stretch an already stretched force, to the point where current gaps are no longer breachable in case of national emergency. Plain fact is that we're running out of utility from equipment build in the 1980s-era buildup, and we've had precious little equipment built since then. But let's assume, for a moment, for the sake of argument, that national defense is a federal expenditure that is morally equivalent to all other parts of the federal budget--morally equivalent to welfare, arts, mass transit, social security, etc. Now we can at least have a meaningful (if theoretical) discussion about the numbers.
The numbers stack as follows.
National Defense accounts for 20% (about $740B) of the 2011 federal budget. But trimming $10B from Defense won't really touch the deficit of $1,700B, not any meaningful amount more than cutting NASA programs has done. Even
entirely eliminating national defense ($740B) from the federal budget would leave us with a residual federal deficit of $960B--almost a full Trillion Dollars of deficit spending, and with no national defense to show for it. So, we see that cutting billions from National Defense--even eliminating National Defense--leaves a deficit still about double what the Bush Jr deficits were ($400B-$600B annually). Do you remember when we had deficits a quarter the size of Obama's, and we had 'Keynesian deficit-loving liberals' howling so loudly, for more than half a decade after 9/11, about how dangerous the huge deficit was? Those howls then made no more sense than did the parallel howls blaming 'the war' for the national deficit; for about two decades already, National Defense simply hasn't been more than 20% of the federal budget in any given year.
So, as the numbers clearly footstomp: today's liberal-spenders' federal deficit is a vast, deep hole. And the numbers also say that none of 'the usual suspects' accounts for the deficit spending.
Then, where is the 'big money' really being spent?
Today, '
entitlements' are 65% ($2.4T, or $2,400B) of the 2011 federal budget.
If we cut 'entitlements' only to a third of current spending--don't even come close to eliminating them--we have found every dollar needed with which to balance the federal budget. Wouldn't that be a load off the taxpayer's minds? Wouldn't that leave a load in taxpayers' wallets? Wouldn't that generate a real economic stimulus? Wouldn't that get government out of unfair competition with true local & regional charities, true charities that are both more efficient and less prone to fraud? Now, besides balancing the budget, that's true 'welfare reform': eliminate two-thirds of it, and erase the annual budget deficit. Indeed, it has been the bloating 'entitlements' that have been the large chunk of federal spending for decades. It is nothing other than 'entitlement' spending that has bankrupted the USA. The Law of Unintended Consequences doesn't care if one is foolish for 'good hearted' reasons; one is still foolish and will have to pay.
So, chopping only a chunk of 'entitlements' does indeed eliminate the annual deficit. Good. But we still have the
national debt that 'entitlements' have given us, totaling
$14.2T (shockingly up from 'only'
$9T in Fall 2007). And we see this 'entitlement'-induced national debt is causing inflation, and causing our federal government to take advice from China on our domestic & foreign policies. Neither of these is any good, no more good than how they prolong our economic disaster. In fact, they all hurt. They spring from the national debt. That debt decidedly hurts all American citizens. Let's also re-discover how debt caused the fall of empires like Rome, Byzantium, Persia, various Chinese dynasties, and modern empires like Britain & France too. We've been told to 'feel' that we're being good to our domestic poor, yet we're screwing ourselves right into our national coffin. History bears out an ancient truth, that also well-describes today's USA:
Debt is indeed a slavemaster harsher than any other. We now see: Keynesian Economics has been an attractive but evilly deceptive bubble; our debt is now so high that the deception bubble is bursting.
What will we do about it?
Can we address this nation-busting debt bubble, and still keep our social security promises to our oldest citizens? Two things matter: having a meaningful alternate use for the money not spent on seniors, and keeping faith with the generation that is too old to have enough years in which to adjust.
The first thing that matters, in keeping faith with our senior citizen generation, is to find alternative meaningful use for the money. Why would we want to axe 'entitlements' to only 10% of current spending? Simple, and essential...We could use the other 90%, to the benefit of all of us, including seniors: about 70% to erase the deficit (as outlined above), and the other
20% to start paying off our national debt--not just paying the interest, for a change, but the actual debt itself--starting with our debts held by a creditor named China.
That 90% would allow a balanced budget, and annual debt payments to principal of $480B--half a trillion dollars of actual debt reduction. Can we retire our debt with 20% ($480B) of current 'entitlement' spending? It'd take about thirty years--about like buying our house. Yes, that truly is how deep a hole we currently have dug four ourselves. But it's vitally important. Wouldn't it actually help us all, including our poorest and our oldest, by removing China's leverage on our domestic policies? Wouldn't it be nice, to start actually paying down the principal on the deficit for the first time since 1956? Can debt reduction, and termination of several ever-expanding major government programs, allow 'Happy Days' to be here again--for all of us, or at least for our kids in three decades?
So we have a viable & valid purpose. What is the cost?
The second thing is keeping faith with specific two-generations-old promises to our aged generation. Can we eliminate 90% of 'entitlement' spending, and still keep faith? The current budget spends almost twice this proposed amount on the 'social security' program. But what are other real numbers? We see that
10% of current 'entitlement' spending totals
$240B – equal to a third of national defense spending, and more than ten times our spending on NASA. According to the Census bureau, about 25% of USA population is 55 years old or older. That's about 75 million American senior citizens, including seniors who are currently not eligible due to not having worked long enough, not yet being old enough, etc. Can we handle a larger number of seniors, with half the money? Is
$3.2B per year per senior citizen sufficient for retirement (less the just pay to federal bureaucrats that administer the program)? Can we do this, and still allow some level of honor to our social security promises to citizens already at least 55 years old--those without sufficient time to switch gears completely to family-centered care for the aged? What if we terminated all the special programs, and just wrote each senior a flat check to use on food, medicine, rent, infirm care, or whatever they wish, in whatever proportion they wish, to meet their own specific situation? This is called 'empowerment': pushing decisions and authority to where the action is, or at least to the closest possible point (like a senior-trusted relative).
Some will object, arguing for the poor Americans who today rely on welfare and other 'entitlement' money. OK. We understand. That paradigm is quite well entrenched, and powerfully reinforced by liberals' artificially-imposed emotive comprehensions. But other viewpoints are valid too, and perhaps more valid in justice to all, particularly in light of current economic & budgetary issues. So we argue back, with three unimpeachable points. First, charity is vital to civilization, but does not equal coercive wealth redistribution. More to the point of situations found in 2011: charity requires something available to give, and an annual federal deficit totaling 46% of spending indicates something fundamental has to change, and quickly, because we simply don't have the money to give to welfare and no part of the budget, outside 'entitlements', is big enough to make a difference. Second, many of us have lived & traveled extensively, both domestically and overseas; we have seen what true poverty really is. In truth, we have precious little true poverty here in the USA, certainly vastly less than we now count. Third, and by far the more important, is a pointed question right back: is government a babysitter of kids, or an entity presiding among adults? The question is philosophical, but has a specific corollary: Does government 'owe' citizens something simply because they breathe within our borders, or is a national obligation incurred only when somebody is injured in service towards preserving the nation from enemies?
Still, a proper sense of charity means we should help the less fortunate. And 5% of current spending, $120B, is still quite a lot of ability with which to help whatever small percent of our 301,000,000 Americans that are in poverty. If liberals think $10B for a Moon Rocket Program is too much money to afford during a budget crisis, how can they seriously object that twelve times the amount ($398,000 per USA man, woman, & child) is somehow too little to afford? Indeed, how can $400 thousand per each & every American citizen (less 'overhead') be too little, in anybody's level-headed thinking? Besides the money availability, are the methods of help. There are options besides government wholly pulling out of it's unfair competitiveness in the 'charity marketplace'; we don't have to totally free this marketplace to true charities. We could have the Fed simply subsidize local & regional charities, which operate far more efficiently than government simply because they actually know their recipients. But then we run a grave risk of 'favoritism' by picking some charitable institutions for more money than what we give to others. Whether government-run or distributed through bona-fide charities, $120B/year could spread a long way. Where do we get this $120B? We can get this $120B if we pay each retiree only $1.6B/year (less overhead), which leaves us $120B to help truly needy Americans. And we should--though it's no 'entitlement'. We could make $120B available as 'disaster recovery' funds that can go to where a President declares a 'national disaster area'--until the President runs out of the $120B for the year. And, it is just, to allow welfare 'entitlement' recipients to adjust, such as by phasing out all non-social-security over a twelve-month period.
Terminating 90% of 'entitlements' is, perhaps, harsh. But only perhaps harsh. What is undeniably harsh, is our horrible budget mess and the economy it is wholly depressing. If we do not cut 'entitlements' now, how far will we muddle down into our debt grave with the current pointless discussions of cutting a few billion here, and half a billion there, before we simply cannot afford 'entitlements' no matter what we might wish, anyway? The end of 'entitlements' is coming, like it or not. The only question is how quickly do we act, and thus how great of a chance do we grab for, for saving the entire country? We better act now, today; otherwise our senior citizens won't even have a choice--they'll be as screwed into the national coffin as the rest of us, whether we like treating our seniors that way, or not.
Bottom Budget Line
So we've been treated to our politicians in D.C. arguing heatedly over 'chump change' of a few billion here, a few billion there. It's much ado about nothing! It's a bunch of harshly wasted time--fiddling while Rome burns.
Yet there is a way out of this debt spiral. It's harsh, perhaps, at first. But our economy has put us into harsh times anyway, so what does it matter? We may as well pick our harsh medicine wisely--and quickly. Medicine is always more effective when taken sooner. It's time for medicine of harsh answers that address harsh truths; it's time to fundamentally adjust America as surely as FDR adjusted America seventy years ago. His experiment has failed. Utterly, irretreviably, failed. FDR's New Deal, fattened by LBJ's Great Society and Tip O'Neal's pricetag for Reagan's 600-Ship Fleet, is an out of control cancer. We have to take medicine, akin to chemotherapy. And the vast majority of voters, who are tax payers not wealth-redistribution recipients, would probably vote solidly for elected officials who show they have enough backbone to tackle the 65% elephant--'entitlements'--that is about to stomp the USA into oblivion. Indeed, could we envision actual celebration, among the vast majority of American citizens, who are the taxpayers? Would this supermajority finally again see a hopeful future for the entire country? Would their employers see that same hope, and start hiring the unemployed again? Yes, we can--we can envision this 'way out' of increasingly abject slavery to our national debt. Debt is harsh, crushing debt is a killer; our medicine may be harsh, but it's the way back to health.
But we're told it won't work? Why? Because we cannot cut 'entitlements'. Why can't we cut 'entitlements'? Because, as we're told, they're 'entitlements', and Congress cannot adjust the spending on 'entitlements'. WHAT???!!!
Man made 'entitlements'. Man can unmake 'entitlements'. It's time for man to wake up, grow up, and behave like adults.
'Entitlements' are breaking us, sucking life out of us, killing us. Slash 'entitlements'...now!
