« Signs of Success in Afghanistan | Main | Shariah: The Threat to America
An Exercise in Competitive Analysis: The Report of Team B II
Part 4 - Shariah and Jihad »

October 14, 2010

The Dependency Culture

For a thoroughly depressing experience, go to your local county board of supervisors/aldermen/city council when they have the annual public input session before they vote on next year's budget. You'll be treated to a parade of government workers and contractors who plead that not only if their particular program is cut the world will come to a screeching halt, but they need additional monies.

If you choose to speak and object that in the current economic downturn the government simply cannot afford programs it could in the past, you'll be told that au contraire, spending more on government programs boosts the economy. This is the case, you see, because businesses don't care about taxes but services, and more money for everything from education to gardening means more business which equals prosperity. And yes, where I live we spend money to teach rich suburbanites how to garden. Really.

Never mind that your local government body may be running a large deficit, or that unemployment or foreclosures are rising. Once a government program is started, it must never be cut, only increased. This is enforced through a built-in constituency; those who are dependent on the program for their incomes can be counted on to demand higher taxes no matter what the economic climate.

And if you sit there and listen most programs do sound important in and of themselves. But then you add them up and they total more than your revenues.

I was reminded of our annual budget hearings where I live when I saw this editorial in today's paper. Although it's about Federal programs and not local ones, it's really the same problem, just at a different level. Following are enough excerpts to make the point:

The political danger of a rising dependent population
The Washington Times
By William W. Beach
Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Every passing year sees significant growth in the mass of Americans dependent on the federal government for life's necessities, from basic nutrition to shelter and health care.

This implacable trend -- long a concern of economists and political scientists -- is beginning to alarm ordinary citizens as well. They rightly sense that growing dependency drives the explosion of federal spending and public debt. They are connecting the dots between out-of-control spending and the public debt crisis here and abroad. They are guessing, again rightly, that every passing day makes controlling dependency more and more difficult, perhaps even more dangerous.

Signs of growing reliance on government -- the antithesis of the traditional American value of self-reliance and self-determinism -- emerge with alarming frequency.
...

Why the increase? Well, for one thing, dependency-creating programs keep offering Americans more and more benefits. Government support for dependent persons has grown from $7,293 per person in 1962, to $31,950 last year (both figures expressed in 2005 dollars). That's a more than fourfold increase in the richness of the benefits, making dependence on government an ever-sweeter deal -- one that gets harder and harder to walk away from.

Another reason is that fewer and fewer people pay for the richer benefits. All adult Americans can vote, but not all voters pay taxes. In 2008, more than 132 million Americans paid no income taxes. That's nearly half -- 43.6 percent -- of all Americans, more than three times the percentage that prevailed just 25 years earlier.

Spending on dependency-creating programs has increased by 49 percent since 2000. But last year alone it jumped a whopping 13.6 percent. Programs experiencing the greatest increase were: Health and welfare, 22 percent; food support, 20 percent; and housing support, 15 percent.
...

Unsustainable growth in dependency programs is at the root of every public debt crisis around the world. While the global recession was the trigger that pushed Greece, Spain and other countries into bankruptcy, the underlying financial problem was unsustainable spending on dependency-creating programs.

Politically involved Americans sense that the pension riots in Greece or the retirement street actions in Paris could come home to the U.S., when the federal government is forced to reduce dependency-related spending. That day could come soon, and the growing connection between financial crisis and political instability has many worried.

Rather than toy with this prospect, Congress needs to address the deep reasons for its excessive spending. That means examining the drivers of dependency and reducing the magnifying utilization of dependency programs. The longer policymakers delay acting on this fundamental challenge, the greater -- and graver -- both the political and economic stakes will become.

It's a problem when only half of the people pay taxes. Their incentive is to take even more money out of the pockets of the "wealthy" to put in their own.

Note please that I'm not really talking about poverty programs here. True poverty programs are necessary. This is as much about "middle-class welfare" as anything.

Yes, Congress needs to address the issue. But this simply begs the question as to what is their incentive? Up until recently, their incentive was to expand dependency programs because it created more dependency and thus the built-in voting constituency that I discussed above.

But the situation has come to a head, so there may well be a way out. George W. Bush and Republican leaders like Denny Haskert and Trent Lott lost conservatives, who had only voted for them in 2004/06 because the Democrats were so much worse. Bush spent a lot, but Obama is Bush on steroids when it comes to spending. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have disgusted not just ordinary Americans but many in their own party as well.

The Tea Party movement is not by itself the answer, but perhaps it represents the answer. First we'll see how well the GOP does in November, and then whether they do as they say once elected. The Tea Party folks say they'll hold them accountable, and I believe they will.

We're not going to overturn the dependency culture in an election or two, but with any luck we can make some dents in it. The alternative is national decline of a sort that will result in a much worse world. The planet needs a strong United States to stand against the dictators. We must not fail.

Posted by Tom at October 14, 2010 9:15 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1649

Comments

"According to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in April, 46 percent of Tea Party supporters fall into the 45-64 age group. The same survey revealed that among 47 percent of self-identified Tea Party supporters, either they or a member of their household was receiving Social Security retirement benefits. When asked whether the outlay for programs such as Social Security and Medicare are worth the taxpayer expense, 62 percent said they were."

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/ending-social-security-how-the-tea-party-agenda-screws-tea-party-supporters/question-1221689/


Let the tea partiers first cut be Social Security and Medicare, which accounts for about 40% of the national budget. If the electorate want cuts, let them have it. We'll see how soon those "anti-dependency" protesters turn into "Don't cut my Social Security/Medicare" protesters, and opt to 'vote the buns out.' Same old story....

Posted by: jason at October 15, 2010 12:07 AM

Thanks for stopping by, jason.

The Tea Partiers say that they'll hold the GOP accountable, and over the next two years we'll see. But I'm certainly not going to give up on them before they've had a chance.

But there's a larger point; the reason we're in this mess is that we've expanded "benefits" to where they cover everyone, and so everyone is "guilty" of participating.

The liberals do this for a reason; if only a small number of poor people were covered, then the program would be easy for the middle class to cut. But cover the middle class, and as you say suddenly the programs aren't so bad.

This seems fine at first, but over time the programs grow and grow and grow and grow... to where we've got a $1.3 billion deficit.

We can't go on like this. I'm not going to throw up my hands and say "same old story," that's way too cynical for me.

So I'm working my own corner of the world for change, and we'll see what happens nationally.

Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at October 15, 2010 10:12 PM

The problem is that my cynicism is derived from reality. Sarah Palin is busy (right now) promoting Sharron Angle and her bizarre fantasy world of talking points: cutting federal governments entitlement programs, etc. etc. The reality is that right now, Sharron Angle receives health insurance through her husband's (Ted Angle) FEDERAL RETIREMENT PENSION, including government provided health care for federal pensioners. The utter hypocrisy is that this Tea Party candidate is already sponging off federal taxpayers, and she hasn't even gotten to Washington. You are going to tell me with a straight face that she is going to cut her husband's pension, and rich federal pension benefits? OK, maybe if they can both shift to her even richer Congressional benefit package... And you honestly are going to tell me these are the people who are going to 'change' the entitlement system? We can revisit this in two years once this crew gets elected and we see how they actually cut the budget.

Posted by: jason at October 18, 2010 9:06 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)