Read, if you can obtain it, Arthur Brooks' latest article in the
Wall Street Journal -
"The Debt Ceiling and the Pursuit of Happiness". Example:
. . . [B]udget reformers need to remember three things. First, this is not a political fight between Republicans and Democrats; it is a fight against 50-year trends toward statism. Second, it is a moral fight, not an economic one. Third, this is not a fight that anyone can win in the 15 months from now to the presidential election. It will take hard work for at least a decade.
Consider a few facts. The Bureau of Economic Analysis tells us that total government spending at all levels has risen to 37% of gross domestic product today from 27% in 1960—and is set to reach 50% by 2038. The Tax Foundation reports that between 1986 and 2008, the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 5% of earners has risen to 59% from 43%. Between 1986 and 2009, the percentage of Americans who pay zero or negative federal income taxes has increased to 51% from 18.5%. And all this is accompanied by an increase in our national debt to 100% of GDP today from 42% in 1980. . . .
Anyone who seeks to provide serious political leadership today - those elected in 2010 or who seek national office in 2012 - owe Americans a plan to escape having to make this choice [between becoming an econmy like Sweden or one like Greece]. We need tectonic changes, not minor fiddling.
Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI), budget plan is the kind of model necessary. But structural change will only suceed if it's accompanied by a moral argument - an unabashed cultural defense of the free enterprise system that helps Americans remember why they love their country and its exceptional culture.
This is more than a political tussle between two parties over how the budget should be crafted to prevent a short-term problem. It is a battle that cannot be put off any longer; the 'chickens have come home to roost', to put it in the words of
Obama's favourite pastor.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome and discussion is open and encouraged. I expect that there will be some occasional disagreement (heaven knows why) or welcome clarification and embellishment, and such are freely solicited.
Consider that all such comments are in the public domain and are expected to be polite, even while contentious. I will delete comments which are ad hominem, as well as those needlessly profane beyond the realm of sputtering incredulity in reaction to some inanity, unless attributed to a quote.
Links to other sources are fine so long as they further the argument or expand on the discussion. All such comments and links are the responsibility of the commenter, and the mere presence herein does not necessarily constitute my agreement.
I will also delete all comments that link to a commercial site.