As anyone who pays any attention to the political arena knows, the US government is now debating on whether or not to raise the debt limit of the federal government. What makes this debate interesting is that Republicans are insisting that the bill include large cuts, to make sure that the government does not continue its irresponsible path and just have to raise the debt limit again. Democrats, on the other hand, say that Republican are playing with the reputation of the US for political gains. Therefore, even though the Democrats claim that they want to reduce the deficit, they seem to want to do it after the pressure is off and it is easier to deceive voters into thinking that reducing the deficit is not an urgent matter.
My first question about the Democrats' argument is why, if they really want to reduce the deficit, they don't just gladly put some cuts in the bill and get it passed. If, as they say, they want both the debt limit raised and deficit reduced, then one would think that they would be glad to get a chance to pass both in the same bill. Unfortunately, the opposite is the case. The Democrats, rather than demonstrating a willingness to reduce the deficit are slandering the Republican for try to restore some semblance of fiscal responsibility to the government before they allow it to go deeper into debt.
Furthermore, I wonder, what is so cunning and evil about the Republican's plan? All they want to do is make sure that the nation will not continue its path to destruction. After all, if there aren't major cuts soon the US government will have to default on its debt anyway and the consequences will be even more severe. It seems that the Democrats decide the policies of the US based on how they feel and what gets them the most votes.
Here, I am afraid, we come to the eye of the storm: entitlements. Unfortunately, in addition to taking up 43% of 2010 federal spending, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all programs that have made the Democrats strong. Since FDR, Democrats have bought votes through entitlements and other forms of handouts. Although helping the poor and elderly is wonderful, these programs have created more poverty, less working individuals, and have had a huge drain on the treasury (although, to my understanding, social security would be doing just fine right now if the feds hadn't been "borrowing" money from it to pay for other programs). Considering the fact that these programs are the largest blocks of spending, one would think that to make real cuts one would need to reform these programs. Democrats, however spaz out whenever someone talks about changing Medicare or social security. Why? because the republicans have suggested shifting some of the responsibility back on individuals and the private sector. For a nation well on its way to becoming a nanny state, this would be a catastrophe. To expect adults to be able to take care of themselves is, obviously, cruel and heartless, as republicans always are. Or at least that's what the Democrats say. Is there really anything wrong with people taking care of themselves? Well, there is if your goal in life is to expand the power of the government and systematically take away the rights given to Americans by God, as outlined in the constitution. Now, If evolution is true, as Liberals insist that we teach in the public schools, wouldn't it be better to leave people to their own devices and allow the weak and inefficient to die out and let the strong reproduce? Why do the Democrats insist on weakening the species by supporting the weaker, less competitive individuals by taking away from the strong? Of course, I don't actually believe in evolution, but the liberals seem to and it seems that this is a major inconsistency in views on government.
Whatever your views on entitlements, you have to admit that they take up a much larger percentage of the deficit than the military, so we can't just raise taxes on the job-makers and cut the military and expect to make a big difference, considering that military was only 20% of the 2010 spending. Although liberals claim that these programs can be reformed significantly enough without changing the benefits, I find this hard to believe. Although government programs are certainly inefficient, I doubt that the politicians will be able to whip it into shape significantly enough, especially to save trillions of dollars. One of the biggest reasons I think this is that Government programs are designed in a way that encourages wastefulness. Unlike in business, where there is a finite amount of money available and it must be made the best of, a government program basically has an infinite amount of money from the ever-borrowing federal government. After all, if a program goes under it's budget by working efficiently, the government will punish it by giving it less money next year. If, however, it spends more than it is given, the government will reward it with more money. Therefore, the programs are set up in such a way that it encourages inefficiencies and punishes hard work and ingenuity. This flaw is only reparable if the task is put into the public sector, which is rewarded for efficiency and quality, unlike the government which rewards inefficiency and doesn't give a fig for quality (just look at the postal service). You may have noticed that this brings us back to the public sector. Wait a minute. . . THAT’S THE REPUBLICANS’ PLAN!!! Seems to me that Republicans are doing exactly what the Democrats claim to want to do, remove inefficiencies from the system and maintain the benefits.
If you disagree with me PLEASE post a reply and explain why. I am completely open to the possibility that I am wrong, I just don't see how yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment