Time for a national “divorce” over irreconcilable differences?

Walter Williams, always a pleasure to read or hear on radio, has a thought provoking column today called Parting company with those neglecting the Constitution. Those who make it their daily task to find ways to demonize conservative viewpoints – and most especially one who is a black conservative – are likely to be johnny on the spot to accuse Williams of fomenting secessionist fever.

The soundbyte news hounds who educate themselves by headlines alone will miss William’s own opinions on his proffered commentary…. found in the last paragraph. But the content leading up to his own hopes for reconciliation will be buried merely by his suggestion that this nation is so divided between “…those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone, that separation is the only peaceable alternative.” Like a troubled marriage, we can seek to reconcile the differences, or agree to part amicably for irreconcilable differences.

Secession attempts in our own historical past have resulted in both the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. The latter is more aptly called the War between the States since this was not a battle for control over a single government, but an confederation of states of the willing.. of which a few decided they were not so willing for sundry reasons that included economic survival, independence, protectionist tariffs (both wars) and slavery (in the latter). But as Williams points out, secession doesn’t need to result in war.

In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden; Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally.

The bottom-line question for all of us is: Should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another?

The chasm runs deep between Americans and, moreover, is founded in the lofty philosophy of what many of us believe is Congressional abrogation of Constitutional power. The arenas that Congress now definitively state they have full power to tax, spend and regulate has been aided for over a century by a Supreme Court, dancing carefully on the fence separating the branches of power.

By SCOTUS concertedly avoiding the basic question in many a citizen’s mind – that being are there any limits to what Congress can attach authority and abscond with taxpayers earnings? – the division and fury by Americans divided is indeed coming to a head.

A just released Gallup poll defining mid term election issues lends insight to what the divisions are about…. money, taxes, the role of federal government in our lives, and social welfare programs.

Of seven issues: The economy, the deficit, health care, unemployment, terrorism, Afghanistan and global warming, the order of import by party shows the Independents and Republicans closely aligned, and the Democrats with an entirely different set of priorities… save one. The generic classification of “the economy”.

Republicans and Independents both placed the deficit in 2nd position of import. The GOP had that tied with Terrorism, and put Unemployment, tied with Afghanistan in fourth position.

The Independents had placed Unemployment in third position, tied with healthcare, and Terrorism in fourth. Afghanistan made the fifth position, and both GOP and Independents placed global warming at the bottom of the pile.

The Democrats, after the Economy, placed healthcare before Unemployment and the Deficit… despite the passage of their leadership’s bill. Terror tied with the Deficit, and Afghanistan was their least worry, placing global warming in a higher concern than the war.

The issues may carry the same title, but what the responders believe as the cure for those issues differ mightily. Clearly, the GOP and the Independents have a different view of the role of federal government… concerned with the handling of the economy, the deficit, and terror. Unemployment is another interesting category since the parties differ on the government’s role in such… i.e. does government “create” jobs? Or do they hinder the private sector from “creating” jobs with their policies and regulations?

Enlightenment can be found on just how citizens view those holding power today. Do they approve of their policies and legislation? Or do they hold the same to be responsible for these very problems. Polls seem to indicate the latter.

Politico’s Josh Kraushaar cites yet another new Gallup poll indicating that the anti-incumbent mood of the nation is the highest it’s been in 18 years of the poll’s existence. 65% of all responders said the current Congressional ins don’t deserve reelection.

Another divide is the inherent belief that government is supposed to care for the “general welfare”, as opposed to fostering independent responsibility and promotion of opportunities.

Scott Hodge, president of the non profit research organization, the Tax Foundation, writes in his IBD op-ed today that the tax code that always included exemptions to protect the poorest Americans from paying income taxes, has now been expanded so far into the middle class that even a family of four earning up to $52,000 can expect to pay no income taxes. This has been steadily fostering the view of the IRS as a public ATM… or “Another Taxpayer’s Money” machine.

What was once a nation of the self reliant is now turning into a nation of takers… and those who accept this as rightful entitlement.

President Obama’s policies, from health care to taxes, are all intended to increase the number of takers in America while reducing the number of givers. Our analysis of Obama’s FY 2011 budget plan shows that it would increase the amount of redistribution from the top 10% of families by nearly $100 billion per year — to a total of $854 billion — while expanding the amount of government benefits targeted to the middle and upper-middle classes.

Economists have identified a phenomenon they call “fiscal illusion.” When people perceive the cost of government is less than what it really is, they will demand ever more government. The real danger today is not just that we have so many non-payers, but that the $1.5 trillion deficit is making the cost of government look cheap for all of us. So much spending is raining down on us that it now seems like “free money” in a sense.

Every marketing guru will tell you that people love free stuff and that they will take as much as they can get whether they need it or not. But for a nation, this is a recipe for fiscal disaster.

This entitlement trend is a path that, according to the CBO, is fiscally unsustainable if tax credits are extended and spending remains at it’s current fury. Even that withdrawal is now a delicate dance with the economy in fragile shape.

“Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth,” Bernanke said in a speech Wednesday.

The CBO projects that Obama’s policies would produce deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion for the next decade.

The deficit would bottom out in 2014 at a level equal to 4.1 percent of gross domestic product, which is higher than the 3 percent level considered to be sustainable by the White House and independent economists. Deficits would again rise after 2014.

The debt-to-GDP ratio would go from 63 percent this year to 90 percent by 2020, the CBO said. A “select group of countries,” including Greece, which is facing a fiscal crisis, have debt levels that high, which is “worrisome,” Elmendorf said.

Elmendorf cautioned against a fiscal retrenchment that is too quick and could hamper an economic recovery. The deficit levels are expected to drop from 10 percent this year to nearly 4 percent within four years, “the most rapid withdrawal of fiscal stimulus since the Second World War,” he said.

The ideal timing for deficit reductions would be “at some point beyond the next few years,” he said.

This brings us to the philosophical quandary deep between us. Are we to cough up more as citizens in order to maintain the entitlement lifestyle being nurtured? Or should we get tough on the elected leadership to reverse the entitlement mentality they have begat, and insist upon increasing every Congressional session?

Once again in America’s history, the Mason-Dixon line is drawn in the sand over federal taxes and the right of the federal government to meddle in free enterprise of both the states and citizens alike for the general “good”. The Euro-socialist western countries provide us the unlikely probability of success of a government, attempting to sustain itself while being the entitlement provider to it’s citizens. But it is a lesson that the elected ones prefer to ignore, instead focusing on the utopian dreams that bend the economic laws of reality.

Thus we return to Williams’ provoking commentary, and the feasibility and wisdom of a national “divorce” between those that crave self reliance from those that are entitlement takers.

Like Williams, I prefer the restoration of Constitutional values as a settlement. But the question remains, is the other side in the least bit amicable to doing so?