First, let me begin by defining “Conservative”, because there are many political definitions for the word.
Conservative: One who believes in a government bound by the limits of the Constitution, strictly constructed, and who acts with fiscal restraint within the boundaries of the Constitution of the governmental organ to which he or she is elected.
By this definition George W Bush is no conservative.
Oh sure, there are plenty of people screaming about the budget – because it cuts 150 federal programs. But let’s look at the radical – and wanton – violations of basic conservative principles that are present in the budget.
Specifically, where in the Constitution (Federal) do you find justification for:
- The Education Department. The “Contract With America” pledged to abolish it, and rightly so. There is no justification for the existence of this department in the federal government anywhere in the Constitution, and the record shows that it has actually hurt schools, not helped them. It should be abolished, not expanded as GW Bush has implemented.
- Social Security. It may be the Third Rail, but justification for it is simply absent from the Constitution. IF the government is to provide a retirement savings program, then it is the government’s job to run it as an investment advisor would, including fiduciary responsibility. The ugly truth is that the Supreme Court has ruled that you have no right to your social security benefits – they can be modified or even eliminated entirely at the whim of the Congress. Partial privatization is not the answer – FULL privatization similar to what Chile has implemented, while still troublesome, is at least defensible Constitutionally.
- Amtrak is another. The argument that it fosters interstate commerce is a farce. The federal ROAD system does, but Amtrak? Yeah. Right. If it cannot exist on its own, after all this time, then shut off the money.
- Farm subsidies. Where in the Constitution do you find justification for give-away programs to someone based on their occupation? Nowhere.
There is plenty more, but this is a good start.
There is only one way we will ever see the Federal Government shrink back to its Constitutional Mandate, and that’s a tax revolt by everyday Americans.
No, I’m not suggesting that readers of this blog attempt to organize one. I am merely observing that the record shows that neither Democrats or Republicans will live anywhere near the boundaries of the Constitution, and we have only ourselves to blame for it, for we keep sending the 535 thieves-in-chief back to their jobs every two or six years.
I predict that if we don’t get the Federal Government back inside its Constitutional Boundaries fairly soon, that “mandatory” (read: entitlement) spending will overwhelm the government’s ability to collect taxes.
At that point you won't be worried about Social Security, Medicare, or your 401k.
You'll be concerned instead about being able to buy things like medicine, food, gasoline, electricity, glass and - I suspsct - firearms and ammunition.
The latter two, of course, being required to keep many who do not even have a bar of soap far enough away from you to prevent them from stealing yours.
"Doomsday"? Hardly. It has happened to other nations who ignored the realities of unfunded mandates and entitlement programs. One need only look to Argentina, which has for the last 20 years teetered on the brink of full economic collapse, seen its middle class thrown into abject poverty, and had prices that rose so fast that they couldn't be printed on store shelves - they'd literally change between the time you put it in your shopping cart and when you reached the checkout counter!
Let us also not forget that the American Revolution was fomented over an effective tax rate that was less than half what we pay today.
While it is inescapably true that we get “more” for our taxes now than before, what happens to the willingness of the people of this nation to cooperate with the tax system – and the government – when those who are paying get LESS?
Won’t happen? Yes it will – and long before Social Security goes bankrupt.
Between Social Security and Medicare (the true “third rail”) I predict that we have less than 20 years before the IOUs can no longer be “rolled over” on the International market at anything that approaches a reasonable interest rate.
When this happens the government will have only two choices:
- Radically devalue the dollar. The problem with this is that it is equally inflationary - if you were to devalue the money overnight so that you only had half the 'real' debt outstanding, you'd also double the price of everything instantly, and wages could not possibly keep pace. This is what happened in Argentina in a (failed) attempt to stave off a default and it literally threw the entire middle class there into poverty. The ugly reality of something like this is that it trashes everyone's retirement and savings at the same time, wrecks the banking system, etc. Nobody gets off scot-free.
- Default. We may do that anyway if we try the first option, but the other is to just out-and-out refuse to pay, and dare anyone to try to "make us." The problem with this approach of course is that there wouldn't be a country in the world that would consider dollars to be worth anything - ever - after that. Now, about that global economy we depend on for minor little things like, oh.... oil?
- Blow off all the entitlement programs. Repeal 'em all. No more Medicare or Social Security. You will suffer the wrath of the gray-hairs, but the alternative is one of the other two scenarios.
There is still time to stave this off. Our defecit is quite manageable at the present time, being historically tiny in comparison to the GDP. However, this will only remain true until those entitlement programs catch up with us, and that starts in about 10 years.
What needs to be done? That's a subject for another entry in the blog.... stay tuned...
