Mark Steyn wrote an excellent editorial over the weekend about the Democrats latest attempt to bolster the nanny state that I just had to blog on, even while on vacation”
Last Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, as is the fashion, used the phrase “the children” like some twitchy verbal tic, a kind of Democrat Tourette’s syndrome: “This is a discussion about America’s children … We could establish ourselves as the children’s Congress … Come forward on behalf of the children … I tried to do that when I was sworn in as speaker surrounded by children. It was a spontaneous moment, but it was one that was clear in its message: we are gaveling this House to order on behalf of the children.”
Etc. So what is the best thing America could do “for the children”? Well, it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a system of unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme. Most of us understand, for example, that Social Security needs to be “fixed” — or we’ll have to raise taxes, or the retirement age, or cut benefits, etc. But, just to get the entitlements debate in perspective, projected public pensions liabilities in the United States are expected to rise by 2040 to about 6.8 percent of our gross domestic product. In Greece, the equivalent figure is 25 percent — that’s not a matter of raising taxes or tweaking retirement age; that’s total societal collapse.
So what? shrug the voters. Not my problem. I paid my taxes, I want my benefits.
In France, President Sarkozy is proposing a very modest step — that those who retire before the age of 65 should not receive free health care — and the French are up in arms about it. He’s being angrily denounced by 53-year-old retirees, a demographic hitherto unknown to functioning societies. You spend your first 25 years being educated, you work for two or three decades, and then you spend a third of a century living off a lavish pension, with the state picking up every health care expense. No society can make that math add up.
And so, in a democratic system today’s electors vote to keep the government gravy coming and leave it to tomorrow for “the children” to worry about. That’s the real “war on children” — and every time you add a new entitlement to the budget you make it less and less likely they’ll win it.
When it comes down to it Socialism is only about selfishness for one generation. Break the bank now, the children be damned! And in this editorial Steyn shows us that the war on children is not being waged by the Republicans, as the Democrats are attempting to portray the issue, but by the Democrats who wish to pass on their selfishness to our future children.
Steyn’s finale:
The Frosts are not emblematic of the health care needs of America so much as they are of the delusion of the broader Western world. They expect to be able to work “part-time” and “intermittently” but own two properties and three premium vehicles and have the state pick up health care costs. Who do you stick with the bill? Four-car owners? Much of France already lives that way: A healthy, wealthy, well-educated populace works a mandatory maximum 35-hour week with six weeks of paid vacation and retirement at 55 and with the government funding all the core responsibilities of adult life.
I’m in favor of tax credits for child health care, and Health Savings Accounts for adults, and any other reform that emphasizes the citizen’s responsibility to himself and his dependents. But middle-class entitlement creep would be wrong even if was affordable, even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover it every month: it turns free-born citizens into enervated wards of the Nanny State. As Gerald Ford likes to say when trying to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.” But there’s an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isn’t big enough to get you to give any of it back. As I point out in my book, nothing makes a citizen more selfish than socially equitable communitarianism: Once a fellow’s enjoying the fruits of Euro-style entitlements, he couldn’t give a hoot about the general societal interest; he’s got his, and who cares if it’s going to bankrupt the state a generation hence?
That’s the real “war on children”: in Europe, it’s killing their future. Don’t make the same mistake here.
Socialism only does one thing to society, it destroys it from within.
See author page
Actually, it’s easy to afford because of my discovery, the TCD (Tax-Cutter’s Dilemma). As taxes are incrementally reduced, Government revenues climb higher and higher, requiring it to find something to do with all the $$. So when tax rates reach miniscule levels, not only will the cost of living and doing business be much reduced, the gov will have all the $$ it needs to finance your Fat Cat lifestyle, without borrowing a nickle! And still be faced with soaring, out-of-control revenues! 😯
What children? One of the things happening to Europe is the lack of children. Then there is a case of immigrants in Europe taking up the slack sort of. The business leaders there like the bodies and cheap labor, but this translates to a weakened tax base and more services to the immigrants than the immigrants give in taxes.
So what happens when the debt hits the immigrants? There are some things the immigrants can do. One is the immigrants will just cancel the entitlements when they become politically powerful. Their second choice is to print money to cover the debt (a tricked used in Latin America) which will cause massive hyperinflation. Their third choice is to move away when they no longer like the burden.
My mother had an expression she used to express a certain amount of scorn for the neuveau riche…(I don’t know how many generations it took for the neuveau part to wear off!) – it was “Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations”. Now that’s an odd sort of cliche, isn’t it? But. Start counting the generations since the depression…we’re just about at the three mark. We _could_ change things, be modest in spending and establish savings…if we do, we could perhaps change our society from “neuveau riche” to “old money”. Or we can spend every dang cent we can get our hands on – and end up broke. It kind of looks like that’s what we’re going to do. Regretfully. Could we change things even if we wanted to? I’m not sure.
Linky no worky…
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 10/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Suek,
I saddens me to see so few people with anything approaching a solid savings account. I guess that would be a solid “liquid” savings account, but finance and science seldom mix. Everyone should have a minimum of 3 months gross income saved in a savings account for emergencies. The goal is 6 months to stave off major home repairs, FUBAR’d autos, illness, injury, layoffs, economic issues, etc. The sad thing is few people even know what their gross income IS. All they know is their net income and never think anything more about it.
Many people have 401Ks, IRAs, and mutual funds, but these are difficult to liquidate when needed. My base’s housing BRAC’d this last year and we bought a home in Michigan. We had 3 paychecks saved up and were able to add an additional down payment and replace the roof (paying cash). One car is paid off with the other at less than 1 year left. My goal is to keep these running (Honda Civic and a Mazda Tribute) until 2010 and replace the Tribute with a mini-van (My signal to the world that I have lost all coolness) and pay most of it in cash. I then plan to pay for a new Civic or Accord in cash. I also would like to add an additional house payment or two per year and pay down the mortgage.
Added to this is the fact that we have a VA loan which capped us at $200k. Many people, in attempting to “keep up with the Jones”, have bought bigger and bigger homes on ARM loans without any thought on how to pay the loan. Well, the ‘A’ means “adjustable” and eventually it adjusts up. What was within means when Prime was low is not within means when Prime is higher. Hence a jump in foreclosures when these large homes become expensive. Our hedge is a fixed rate loan which also caps us on the loan amount.
Rational spending does not mean do without, it means spend wisely. Do you need the $50,000 sports car or the $20,000 sedan? Do you need to go to Parisan’s (an expensive department store) or can you get the same thing a JC Pennies for half the cost? We have friends who think they HAVE to pay full price and then some for everything (even mundane items). We both have the exact same items for our kids, but they have 4 times the debt and both of them have to work. My wife, by her choice, stays at home and enjoys our kids.
The moral of the story? Get rid of the credit cards, have a real savings account with 3-6 months plus worth of gross income saved, pay cash for as much as you can, shop smart, and have retirement accounts. Yes, it has taken years to get this far and I still have a credit card to pay off. But here is the flip side: I am re-siding the house this year, the lawnmower blew up last week, and my truck needs new front tires. In most homes, this would cause havoc. In ours, it is an annoyance, but not a catastrophe.
Suek is right. If we adopt wise savings and wiser spending, we can ensure the USA becomes and “old money†country and has a future for our children. Or we, and the government, can spend it all right now and screw the kids.
If we were really serious about doing something for our children we would revamp the entire educational system. We would return to teaching and emphasizing academics. We would instill pride, responsibility, descipline, honor and a good work ethic. Let’s start with discipline because that is totally absent.
Sex education, drivers’ training and a choice of a dozen different sports is OK I guess but should never be put above what a child will need to make a living for himself. We are so far from the true meaning of education that I wonder if we could ever make our way back.
Buckeye,
I agree fully. A revamp of the entire educational system and the political ties it has (education should be a-political) must be accomplished. Our education system must emphasize all you pointed out and be fully accountable to the public. This includes mandatory testing for teachers, audits of school funds/programs, and true choice for parents on where to send their kids.
“If a man empties his purse into his head no one can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.”
-Benjamin Franklin