Posted on 12/24/2005 6:29:48 AM PST by RKV
America has a split personality when it comes to paying for a just, free society. On the one hand, there's almost universal acceptance of the sacrifices needed to defend the nation from military and terrorist threats. This has created a bipartisan consensus to devote $453 billion, well over half of all discretionary federal spending this year, to defense. Most even accept the ultimate sacrifice of our brave military servicemen and women, who give their lives defending the nation.
The question is, why accept the costs of defending our country from external threats while turning our backs on domestic programs that counter internal threats to a just society? Sadly, the answer appears to be that Americans accept inequities in federal spending priorities based mostly on inaccurate, if not disingenuous, political spin.
The federal budget compromise passed this week illustrates how distorted rhetoric creates distorted policy. The budget that emerged imposes domestic spending cuts totaling almost $40 billion over the next five years. The cuts primarily come from safety-net programs that benefit the poor, such as Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or help low- and middle-income families send their kids to college. Few policy justifications were offered for the cuts. Instead, the primary claim is they're needed to reduce the deficit. That's rich.
The current budget deficit is $560 billion. The proposed cuts will save only about $8 billion. That's 1.4 percent, for those of you scoring at home. Surely, there are better ways to reduce the deficit. Say we cut defense spending a paltry 2 percent. That would save more money this year than all the domestic programs being cut -- combined. Better still, rescinding the Bush tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy would lop an impressive $253 billion off the deficit.
Compare that savings to what we get from the particularly mean-spirited and pernicious Medicaid cuts. To save about $380 million a year -- not even a rounding error in the current deficit -- the budget compromise allows states to impose additional co-pays and higher premiums on Medicaid recipients. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas claimed higher co-pays are needed to ''encourage personal responsibility'' in Medicaid beneficiaries.
Interesting spin, that. Is it personally irresponsible to visit the doctor when you or your kid is sick? The reality is, the savings from this cut will have no impact on the deficit, but will push poor folks away from medical treatment. According to the respected Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, research and actual experience demonstrate that for low-income families, increased co-pays and premiums ''create barriers to obtaining or maintaining coverage, increase the number of uninsured, reduce use of essential services and increase financial strains on families who already devote a significant share of their incomes to out-of-pocket medical expenses.''
Rather than encourage ''personal responsibility,'' this budget maneuver will cause low-income families to become uninsured, shifting the cost of their health care to providers, or to delay medical care until they become so sick they go to the emergency room (which costs a bundle in tax dollars). The claim that America can't afford the current system simply doesn't pass muster. India, which has three times more people than America but a Gross Domestic Product 16 times smaller, somehow manages to fund universal health care (while taking U.S. jobs to boot).
If anything, America should do more to provide workers and families access to health care; fund child care that assists recipients' of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families enter the work force, and make college loans easier to afford. I know it's Christmas Eve, but making these public investments isn't a gift, charity or handout. It's the cost of a just society. It's either that, or allow feckless political spin to justify underfunding programs that counter domestic threats to the health and well-being of America's poor, low- and middle-income families. All so that taxpayers won't have to sacrifice a little wealth to invest in creating the just society our military gives their lives to defend.
This guy sounds like the ghost of Lyndon Johnson. Nobody complained about the cost of health care until the government got involved in the system.
Have the World Council of Churches order their respective members to cough up the dough.
I don't mind paying for our military, fire departments, police departments, etc. But welfare..... Nanny State.... Womb to Tomb Society.... I have no patience for any of that. And even my liberal friend from Canada who is out on PAID ONE YEAR MATERNITY LEAVE thinks people should take care of themselves financially - when she isn't on paid leave.
I think I should move to Canada and have a baby every year and get freeloader money forever. LOL
JFK's last Federal Budget was $99 billion.
Since 1965, the American people have paid more than TEN TRILLION DOLLARS in transfer payments chasing an illusory "just society".
And this guy wants more???
The reason I won't support this ding-dong's idea of a "just and free" society is that with ding-dong's like him in charge of the 'just and free' society, it would be little more than a ding-dong's version of justice, a ding-dong's version of politically acceptable freedom and to achieve this ding-dong uptopia, I'd be forced by the ding-dong laws and ding-dong police to give up my traditional American visions of liberty and happiness to pay for widespread and inescapable ding-dongism.
Bah and humbug to this jack@ss.
Merry Christmas to all American freedom and true justice loving patriots and the very best of all to the military that preserves our treasured nation.
Notice the hidden assumption, that a society is not just unless everyone has exactly the same worldly goods.
From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.
--Karl Marx
SO9
A just society is one that allows me to keep the rewards from my hard work rather than confiscating them and redistributing them to somebody who does not work so hard (or at all) or who did not make my investment in education.
SO TRUE! Used to cost $7 for a doctor's office visit, and $7 for a tooth filling. Now it is over a hundred bucks for either one, thanks to the "help" of medical and dental insurance. I think the old way was better. We all paid for reg. office visits, drugs, shots... Insurance only paid for emergencies/surgeries, etc. It was much cheaper. Now with all the med. insurance and medicare and medicaid, the costs just keep going UP UP UP. One local doctor raised his OV price from $20 to $60 when most of his patients got insurance - because he could. For those without insur. he kept the old price.
From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs.
--Karl Marx>>
Translation:
"From each according to his abilities. To each according to MY needs."
The NYC transit guys went on strike in part due to a demand that they pay 1% of their health care premiums. I've worked with union guys before at a large tire manufacturer who had a similar union contract. No health insurance premium, no co-pay for drugs, no payment for office visits, etc., etc.
Their doctor was their best friend.
Have a sniffle-go to the doctor. Wake up hungover-go to the doctor. Don't feel like going to work-go to the doctor.
These union contracts are seriously screwing up healthcare in this country.
Notice the hidden assumption, that a society is not just unless everyone has exactly the same worldly goods.
And here in Southern Calif. I seem to be the only one without a Bentley or Jaguar... So according to the author of this article WHERE'S MINE? I sure see a lot of things that aren't equal to me.
Of course, the author doesn't mention the non-discretionary spending on social programs, which I believe is now more than the discretionary.
No health insurance premium, no co-pay for drugs, no payment for office visits, etc., etc.
We pay a large co-pay and huge monthly premiums for our medical and dental insurance. Through Dow Chem.
It could be that those of us who have been around for awhile have seen the results of nannying the unproductive: parasitic, ungrateful, "entitled" people who are neither happy nor tolerable.
Why would we want to create more?
Defense spending is discretionary? I'd have thought that it was necessary.
I'm with you on the parasites and slackers, but do not oppose offering some help to those who've had a run of bad luck. But then, that's what charity is for...
The Oklahoma state motto is something like WORK HARD AND SUCCEED. But my family there is all Democrat. They think so many needy people just can't provide for themselves. Well, when I was growing up in Okla. we NEVER took charity or gov. assistance, even when Dad was between jobs. We were proud and hardworking. What happened to our society since the 1950s? Liberalism!
When this clown can explain how the needs of someone else have created obligations on my part, I'll talk to him. Until then he is simply unimportant noise.
OMG. What grade is this guy in?
So a "just society" is only one that has universal health care? Where does it say that in the Constitution? Did Hillary sneak in an amendment?
I noticed the "discretionary" qualification in his statement.
On the other hand, I thought our budget is 2/3 "entitlement" spending.
Spending cuts? BS.
They agreed to propose a smaller rate of growth in the years to come.
as Thomas Sowell said - "Why are other people bound to do for you what you won't do for yourself?"
I couldn't agree more!
Start with foreign aid and domestic subsidies. Eliminate all the pork "earmarks", balance the budget, and require all the countries who have enjoy the protection of our military start paying for the service.
That's just a few,there are many more examples of influential people refusing to do for themselves.......
At our expense.
About 20 years ago a liberal came up with the idea that one could equate justice with taking from one person and giving it to another. It's hard to argue with the idea of justice and they almost caught us debating this issue on their level. Justice has absolutely nothing to do with social programs. When you give someone money from the public trough just because they need or want it, it is called charity. Justice is ensuring that everyone gets treated equally under the law.
Actually, they want it all. Well, they want all of YOURS. Since they are compassionate they don't need to give up their own.
Six trillion just isn't enough... ;)
The writer is correct about the spin and the inequities in spending priorities. The left has been spinning stories for several decades in order to increase spending on entitlement programs.
The real reason for the big-spending by the dems/stealth-commies is to buy votes plain and simple.
Anything else a democrat has to say is suspect.
When you give someone money from the public trough just because they need or want it, it is called charity.
=====
If I give it myself, I call it charity. If government takes it from me and gives it to someone then I call it stealing.
It's truly never enough for you people, is it? But you will sleep in Heavenly peace tonight, thinking you've changed the world. Never seeing the truth. pity.
If he is anything like the ding-dong's down here in givernment and academia in FloriDUH, shouldn't that be changed from "Bah and humbug" to "Bah and humbuggery"?
"For thus speaks justice to me: "Men are not equal." Friedrich Nietzsche"
And none are equal to Nietzeche....according to Nietzeche
Ah, but that's how things work today! "Would you get that for me, please?" has been replaced by "I can't reach that!" with just enough of a tone of impatience to let you know it's your fault.
oh yeah- and MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU!!!
GOD BLESS!
Well said, sir. And Merry Christmas.
I have no real problem with helping those who are truly in need...who are facing a crisis with nowhere else to turn. But I am always reminded of where this type of help is supposed to come from:
1 Timothy 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
and:
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
There are some who, through no true fault of their own, need help, for a time. Then there are those who have not, and will not, attempt to help themselves. I resent provided unlimited aid to this type.
True regard, or love, for our fellow man is not demonstrated in unmerited, endless handouts.
pattyjo
he refers to the "$453 billion, well over half of all discretionary federal spending this year, to defense." with no mention of that portion of the budget that is non-discretionary, the "entitlements," which comprise the vast portion of the budget... and in the process provide quite generously for the 'needy.'
there wouldn't be as many poor if they weren't taxed to death to pay for programs for the poor. who find it easier to NOT work and recieve MY money
How about we get rid of the present system and NOT implement your suggestion. I have trouble finding authorization of both the present system and your suggestion in my copy of the Constitution. Maybe you have a later revision.
The Congress shall have Power to ... provide for the common defence ... To raise and support Armies To provide and maintain a Navy To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
It's amazing how liberals tend to miss this secion of the constitution. Yet, when did the constitution mean anything to a liberal outside of "free speech."
This is just an outright lie.
There are many people who really could use constructive assistance, its true. But, they will never get the chance at a productive course of action because of the greedy and self serving congress that controls our national budget. The idea of cutting everywhere is a budgetary constraint that must be employed because our politicians refuse to drop the useless pork programs that pander to self interest groups.
If the degenerates who litter our halls of congress think that giving 'artists' money to urinate on a Cricifix is more important than medical aid for a needy family, so be it. We're getting what we deserve for trusting them with our well being.
Hey, buddy, how far have you opened YOUR wallet this year? Why are you demanding that the government force other people to open theirs?
And several times that off GDP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.