Showing posts with label entitlements. Show all posts
Showing posts with label entitlements. Show all posts

Friday, October 7, 2011

Ending Entitlements


As a small-government constitutionalist (actually I prefer the Articles of Confederation), I shudder when I suggest that it may not be prudent or practical to end our federal entitlement apparatus. Entitlements represent the epitome of government theft by force. They take the wealth and property from one citizen and transfer it to another. The problem is that our entitlement mentality has become so entrenched that weaning the recipients could result in violent confrontation. The very last development we can afford in times of fiscal and social stress is to encourage or implement robust policing by the government. Neither the welfare state nor the police state is healthy for liberty.

Another factor that affects the wisdom of eliminating the major portion of the entitlement structure is the regulatory over reach of government at every level. If our goal is to remove people from government benefits, there must be a viable alternative for them to support themselves, their families and to pursue personal wealth. The present regulatory nightmare is not friendly for new startups and, in many cases, discourages creative, energetic people from becoming entrepreneurs. The same government that developed programs to create dependency status for recipients has erected innumerable barriers for those who wish to become self-sufficient.

Dismantling the entitlement and welfare superstructures is a good start towards smaller more constitutional government, but for the reasons cited above and for philosophical and constitutional reasons, the regulatory maze must be simultaneously disassembled. In many respects an attempt to develop a sensible regulatory regime will be infinitely more challenging than ending the entitlement fiasco. Layer after layer, exception after exception and rule after rule exist in a political lasagna of nanny-state oversight. The multi-layered regulatory control mechanism will be extremely difficult to unravel. As one tier or another is peeled away, some unscrupulous individuals or companies may seek to take advantage of the opening. Their schemes could cause the public and the professional political class to demand the restoration of the regulatory oversight. In addition the various agencies and departments are so over-lapped that eliminating one noxious regulation may expose another just as toxic.

Now we move back to the original premise of this column. The drastic reduction of the entitlement/direct subsidy function of the government must be drastically reduced or eliminated altogether in order to restore fiscal sanity and constitutional government. That isn’t enough however as the myriad rules and regulations lie in wait to subvert our efforts to secure our liberty. The task is monumental, but it is vital if we are to pull Nanny’s rug out from under many of our fellow citizens. Concurrent with their weaning they must have a corresponding freedom to pursue their personal prosperity. We cannot in good conscience destroy their lifeboats on which they have depended perhaps for generations without providing the life vests of freedom. Unskilled people whose motivations and dreams have been blunted by government handouts must be allowed as much leeway as is possible to develop the skills and habits necessary for survival…..and for thriving.

Our federal government has grown so large and cumbersome that an objective analysis would suggest that inefficiencies and cost overruns are standard operating procedure. One doesn’t have to be a constitutionalist to understand that our government cannot adequately perform the tasks that it has claimed for itself. Reducing the monster to a functional role is a monumental task. Shrinking the leviathan to its constitutional function requires a radical vivisection that will cause massive disruptive upheaval. The radical remedy is the only viable one because we have experienced the steady growth of government in our lifetimes. Partial solutions will result in little gain as the incremental reestablishment of big government will accelerate and overwhelm us.

We cannot simply address the looter class and their living off the largesse of productive taxpayers. We must attack and eliminate every tentacle of the big government monster in order to rebuild the dream of our Founders and Framers. Restructuring and rebuilding will be painful. The path to restoration is littered with traps and foes. We must be strong. We must be resolute. We must be victorious.

Tue. & Wed. 6-7:00pm, 1370 WSPD, Toledo  www.wspd.com


   

  

Friday, July 8, 2011

Mental Muscle, Moral Courage


In times of national, familial or personal stress we often allow our “feelings” or reactions to get the better of us and the situation. We may lash out, withdraw or wallow in our victimhood. Each of these spontaneous responses is generated by our feelings…our emotions. When we encounter some aspect of government that directly affects us….for good or for ill, it is critical that we face the program or the activity with as much mental clarity as we can muster. We must be in our best conditioning for reasoning. We must exercise our mental muscles.

Let’s examine one of the most painful and obvious examples of unconstitutional governmental abuse. This program is clearly unconstitutional and given the way that it has been administered by government through the decades is also immoral. Yet, most people…even the hardest core fiscal conservatives do not want anyone to tamper with the program or to speak of ending it. The infamous “third rail” of politics is Social Security…the grandiose ponzi scheme that robs future generations of their legacy of liberty. I personally have heard self-proclaimed constitutional conservatives vehemently criticize fiscal hawks for “messing’ with their Social Security. They claim that because they have contributed for nearly all of their working lives, they are “entitled” to the benefits. They have earned them. Their sentiments may be true and justified, but we have no funded trust for retirees, and the nation is broke…busted…upside down. When the system began, nearly a dozen full-time workers were needed to fund one retiree’s benefits. Now three workers provide the necessary cash flow, and soon only two workers will be shouldering the load for their elders. The reasons for this change are several, but the dominate ones are increasing and more broadly distributed benefits, and the massive infusion of “Baby Boomers” into the system concurrent with several decades of smaller family growth.

So, Friends, who claim to be fiscal conservatives, it is time to pony up. You cannot in good conscience or with any moral basis whatsoever expect the nation to return to fiscal sanity if you are not willing to forgo your “entitlements.” Get over it. The programs that you cherish so dearly have not been funded for years. You bought the sizzle without the steak, and now you expect future generations to provide the steak with no sizzle for them. The people who follow you did not lie and over-promise. Why does your greed or self-interest become more important than the future generations’ survival? Before you begin gnashing your teeth, pulling your hair or slitting your wrists, think about the net result of eliminating the entitlement system.

Each company and every worker would have an additional 7.5% (rounded off for illustration purposes) net income available for assisting family members in need. The additional cash-in-pocket amount would accelerate the economy, thus providing even more activity and availability for assisting or charitable giving. You might say,”But they won’t help me.” Perhaps, but your odds of collecting real money from the government are shrinking every day, every hour. In addition to the instant economic boost achieved by eliminating certain entitlements, we would also gain the added benefit of losing a volatile wedge issue for the big spending politicians. The demagoguery on this issue alone has contributed mightily to our economic death spiral. Do the math with an objective mind. You may take a hit, but it won’t be as great as if you continue to insist on “everything that you have coming to you.” One other economic benefit is that if we eliminate all those fiat government dollars chasing food supplies, we should experience some leveling of the food inflationary trend.

Emotional responses are powerful, and the survival instinct is too. This debate that is going on today revolves around the nature and purpose of government…its role in our lives. My Libertarian preferences are clear. I want the federal government to fit in a shoebox and be strictly limited to its Article 1, Section 8 enumerated powers or duties. Many of you readers are not libertarian but do proclaim yourselves to be constitutional conservatives except for…..Social security, Medicare, farm subsidies, corporate incentives, home mortgage tax breaks… any number of government programs or benefits that help YOU. As much as I care for you, your bennies are bad just like welfare, foreign aid, unnecessary wars, bailouts, sweetheart deals, and all other over reaching aspects of government goodies….and control. Many of us have become like crack addicts in the drug dens of benign government, and … we’re dying because of our unwillingness to kick our habits. As libertarians, conservatives, tea party members and patriots you (we) must be committed to going “cold turkey” from government’s largesse. It’s a big step, but it does not match pledging “our lives, our fortunes or our sacred honor.”

If we are truly serious about restoring limited constitutional government, the task must begin at home.

  



Friday, January 7, 2011

Self Interest versus Entitlement


Ayn Rand and her philosophical point of view resonate with many in the liberty movement. The simplified explanation of Objectivist thought is that unfettered self-interest is the ideal motivation for each person to achieve her/his greatest potential. The underlying assumption is that if each individual is free to pursue his dreams and goals without government control or intervention, then society will benefit as the creative impulse improves the environment for all. Also, the Objectivists reject the notion of social pressure or political correctness as a determinate for directing the actions of a person who relies on self-interest as a guiding force. The “Mind your own business,” leave me alone,” and “Don’t tread on me” philosophy is the recognition that each individual possesses the ability to chart his/her own course through life.
Personally, I subscribe to the Objectivist-Christian view of our role on earth. I do believe that the pursuit of self-interest and self-fulfillment coupled with a truly charitable impulse is the optimum way to serve God and maximize my individual potential. Many confuse “self-interest” with “selfishness.” An individual or company that engages in a self-interested pursuit does not cheat, does not spread falsehoods about competitors, and in turn, does not expect favorable benefits or unfair advantages (e.g. government subsidies or insider trading). It’s nearly impossible to address all the facets of the self-interest driven life versus the selfishly motivated one, but I’ll attempt to use a sports metaphor. The self-interested person “plays within himself,” while the selfish boor continues to grab and consume beyond his capacity to do so wisely. Selfishness is greed. Self-interest is the prudent maximization of individual potential.
Those who are zealous about personal liberty sometimes encounter others who accuse them of being greedy or selfish because they want to limit the government’s control over their lives, their labor and their property. The critics fail to realize, however, that it is the interventionist entitlement mentality that most represents unrestrained greed and selfishness. The organization or individual who insists that others provide the living or lifestyle for those who do not utilize their energy or talents for their own well-being are truly the parasites of society. Greed is NOT keeping what you’ve earned, but rather keeping what someone else has labored to produce. Selfishness is NOT using your talent and property to achieve its greatest efficiency. Selfishness is the expectation that others have an obligation to provide for you that which you are unwilling to acquire for yourself.
Now we come to entitlements. By definition an entitlement is something you receive merely for being YOU. No earning, no extraordinary effort and no persistence are required for you to be the “entitled” recipient. In today’s political parlance, if someone were to complain about the high cost and wasteful nature of entitlement spending, the commentator is immediately characterized as greedy or selfish….even though the concept of entitlement represents the epitome of greed and selfishness. The progressives and their brain-dead political fellow travelers have succeeded in distorting the meanings and values of vital elements of character. Self-interest has become an undesirable trait, and entitlement carries the trappings of nobility. What is up is down. Correspondingly, in some quarters scamming the system has become an admirable endeavor, and those who play by the rules are labeled “chumps.”  
The elephant in the room in this discussion is the government…at all levels. It is government who creates entitlements, expands them and determines who receives them. It is government who unconstitutionally and contrary to natural law limits personal freedom, confiscates the product of peoples’ labor and seizes or restricts their property. It is government who continually thwarts the efforts of the self-interested citizen by regulating and limiting his activity. It is government and its toady supporters who define up as down. The self-interested producers must train, educate and inform those who will listen about the necessity for self interest. The producers must capture the reins of government, or we shall fail. If we fail, the fragile house of entitlement will collapse, and the entitlement mindset will finally achieve that to which it is entitled.