Posted on 04/04/2011 4:42:47 PM PDT by Kaslin
When someone gives you a check and the bank informs you that there are insufficient funds, who do you get mad at? In your own life, you get mad at the guy who gave you a check that bounced, not at the bank. But in politics, you get mad at whoever tells you there's no money.
One of the secrets of the growth of the welfare state is that politicians get a lot of mileage out of making promises, without setting aside enough money to fulfill those promises.
When Congress votes for all sorts of benefits, without voting for enough taxes to pay for them, they get the support of those who have been promised the benefits, without getting grief from the taxpayers. It's strictly win-win as far as the welfare-state politicians are concerned. But it is strictly lose-lose, big-time, for the country, as deficits skyrocket.
Anyone who says that we don't have the money to pay what was promised is accused of trying to destroy Social Security, Medicare or ObamaCare — or whatever other unfunded promises have been made. It is like blaming the bank for saying the check bounced.
It is the same story at the state level as in Washington. The lavish pensions promised to members of public-sector unions cannot continue to be paid because the money is just not there. But who are the unions mad at? Those who say that the money is not there.
How far short are the states? It varies from one state to another. It also varies with how large a rate of return the state gets on its investments with the inadequate amount of money that has been set aside to cover its promised pensions.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Ping
bkmk
How does Dr Sowell do it, column after column after column. In my next life I’m coming back with his intelligence. For now it will suffice to read him.
My pleasure :)
Thanks for the ping, jaz. I’m afraid he has left his argument open to the typical liberal mindset of “just raise taxes”. I wish he had added a preemptive response.
“preemptive response.”
Wouldn’t have helped. Leftism is a mental and spiritual disorder. They are not rational because they cannot be so.
Thanks for the ping. Dr. Sowell is an American treasure.
One of the reasons why a federal "balanced budget" amendment is unlikely to do what many of its advocates claim is that a budget is just a plan for the future. It does not have to bear any resemblance to the realities of either the past or the future.. . . which is why my idea of a balanced budget for next year is one which spends no more than the government actually took in last year - less however much the government overspent last year. That would eliminate the guesswork and the rosy scenarios on the income side.But to eliminate the unfunded pension liabilities, I think the only solution is to eliminate defined-benefit plans and replace them with defined contribution 401(k) type plans. Flat-out privatization, IOW.
But you still have to address the "bubble" issue . . . which would at least be somewhat ameliorated if the budget were so tightly hemmed in constitutionally that it was difficult for the government to participate in bubbles like Fannie/Freddie.Not that that is a easy sell politically . . .
Another good one kick startin’ the brainwork of a Nation. Thanks for the ping jaz.
Unfortunately, our government's spending is based on their conviction that they will buy the winning Mega Millions ticket!
Sounds like a great plan to me. Like you say though, it’d be tough to get passed with all the big spenders on the Hill.
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.