To cure dependency 4

Socialism has failed in America as it has failed everywhere it has been tried, and always must. It’s a bad idea.

Now the harm the socialists have done must be undone.

We agree for the most part with these comments from an article at RedState on Paul Ryan’s budget.

This budget proposal, which would cut $5.8 trillion from the CBO baseline over the next decade, is a mature and well balanced plan emanating from a city full of fatuous demagoguery. …

It is a laudable first step that has come to fruition through the assiduous work of Paul Ryan and his Republican colleagues on the Budget Committee. It is a fresh breath of moderation and seriousness amidst the extremism that is so endemic in Washington among the Democrats. Here is a cursory breakdown of some of the major provisions of the Ryan plan, categorized by the excellent, the good, and the need for improvement.

The Excellent

Medicaid: The budget proposes a transformational change to Medicaid by converting it to a block grant program which would give states more flexibility in how to spend their Medicaid dollars. There would also be an overall cap placed on the block grants. This would encourage states to innovate and formulate the best ideas for reducing dependency, instead of exacerbating it through an open ended entitlement program. The plan would trim the cost of Medicaid by $771 billion from the CBO baseline over the next decade.

Corporate Welfare/Ethanol/Farm Subsidies: Ryan’s proposal repeals the odious ethanol subsidies lock, stock and barrel. It also reforms farm subsidies by trimming farm/corporate welfare from its current level of $25 billion. This is especially prescient given the record high food prices that have been spurred in part by these market-distorting subsidies. To address the record high energy prices, the proposal calls for an end to tax cuts for the rich – no more green subsidies!

Obamacare: It defunds Obamacare lock, stock and barrel. While much of the budget is driven by choices between several evils in order to reform existing Democrat entitlement programs, this proposal prevents ObamaCare from becoming another Medicare/Medicaid disaster.

Taxes: The proposal reduces the highest corporate and personal income tax rates to 25%.

Earmarks: The ban on earmarks is made permanent.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae: The budget plan cancels these economic destructive government entities and calls for their privatization. …

The Good

Medicare: Ryan proposes a premium-support program to replace the current market-distorting, bankrupting, and open-ended subsidization of all health care for seniors. Under such a plan, the government would pay the premiums of Medicare enrollees’ so they can purchase an insurance plan of their choice in the free market. As with the Medicaid proposal, this plan would mandate an overall spending cap on the amount of the premium payments.

While this plan is a prudential first step to infusing the free market into an otherwise socialized sector of the economy, the changes will not take effect for another 10 years. Also, a more conservative approach would have called for the issuance of vouchers, thereby directly empowering the individual, as opposed to perpetuating the role of government through their payments to insurance companies. …

Welfare Reform: Ryan proposes converting the Food Stamp program into a block grant to states that would be indexed to inflation and tailor made to each state’s own unique circumstances. He also wants to apply the 1996 welfare reform accountability mechanisms to other housing assistance programs. There are currently a staggering 44 million Americans on food stamps and the program is projected to cost $700 billion over the next 10 years. Ryan’s reforms offer a very good first step. On the other hand, there are still over 70 other welfare programs that cost another trillion dollars, but are untouched in this proposal. …

Need for Improvement

Social Security: The most glaring omission of Ryan’s budget plan is a fix to Social Security. It is understandable why Ryan would shy away from touching the most sacrosanct program in the federal arsenal, especially as he is bravely striking out at virtually all of the other major programs. However it must be reformed.

Abolished, we would say. We are deskchair politicians, and as such do not have to be strictly realistic. We know that politics is “the art of the possible”. We know that it is not possible to legislate too far ahead of public opinion. But as we are not legislators, only opinion pedlars, we airily declare that we would like to see absolutely no government interference in the market. There shouldn’t be the least whiff of a stub of socialism left in the ash-tray of American history, but Social Security goes smouldering on, a huge reeking stogie.

Many good conservatives are so concerned about solvency that they are calling for a raise in the retirement age and means-testing of benefits. While those proposals might succeed in making SS more solvent, they are an anathema to the ideals of free market capitalism and individual liberty. It is inconceivable that a hard working 30 year-old should be forced to work until 70 (maybe longer) and then awarded his retirement at the whims of a means-tested regime, all the while having no property rights over his retirement security.

The objective of entitlement reform is not to make a Democrat-run program solvent. Our objective vis-à-vis entitlement reform should be focused on returning the wealth to the American worker and taxpayer by promoting more liberty and prosperity. It is fair to propose much needed innovative changes such as benefit cuts and retirement age adjustments for those who optionally enroll in such a program. However, there can be no discussion of raising the retirement age without offering young workers private accounts or an option to opt out.

Taxes: Repeal Death Tax- One of the more egregious components of the grand tax deal last year was the reinstating of the immoral Death Tax at 35%. The Death Tax needs to be abolished. Period.

Non-defense discretionary spending: The proposal only cuts $1.7 trillion from domestic discretionary programs over 10 years. That adds up to roughly $170 billion in discretionary spending cuts per year. This is accomplished by bringing non-security discretionary spending back below 2008 levels and then freezing it for five years. Spending levels for most agencies should be reduced to 2006 levels. Furthermore, Republicans should take a closer look at Rand Paul’s proposal to cut up to $500 billion a year by eliminating such impotent departments as HUD [Housing and Urban Development], Education, and Energy. His plan would also seriously reduce the funding, size, and scope of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, HHS [Health and Human Services], Interior, and Labor.

Keep in mind that when we fund these agencies, we are not merely losing the billions or tens of billions of dollars in wasted expenditures. These superfluous agencies use that funding to impose onerous market-distorting regulations and mandates on job creation, income growth, energy productivity, and consumer purchasing power. Such a cost to our economy is incalculable.

Debt and Deficit: Due in part to the previous point, the proposal would take too long to balance the budget. For FY 2012, the government would spend $3.529 trillion and collect $2.533 trillion, still resulting in a gargantuan deficit of $995 billion. It would take another 26 years to fully balance the budget.

Conclusion

The Democrats have worked indefatigably for a century to destroy the fabric of our free market, liberty seeking society. We will not restore our republic overnight. … Paul Ryan’s proposal provides us with the building blocks from which to bring about the restoration of our constitutional government.

Will it, or something close to it, be passed?

Not easily. Socialism is an addiction, very hard to cure.

Posted under Commentary, Economics, United States by Jillian Becker on Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Tagged with , , , ,

This post has 4 comments.

Permalink
  • “There shouldn’t be the least whiff of a stub of socialism left in the ash-tray of American history, but Social Security goes smouldering on, a huge reeking stogie.”

    As a cigar smoker, I wish to complain about the insensitive linking of something tasteful and redolent of liberty (the noble cigar) with something odious (socialism). 😉

    • Jillian Becker

      Apologies to the noble cigar and its smoker! I got carried away by the metaphor. A writer’s hazard, as you’ve probably experienced yourself, Consvltvs.

      • Many a metaphor has carried me away, as you correctly guessed, though with far less merit. Nicely written, ma’am.

  • George

    Everywhere that socialism has raised it’s ugly head , it has been a dismal FAILURE. Here in America the primary group that has suffered the worst with this socialist government agenda has been the black ethnic group . It has turned black people into an ethnic group of dependents of state welfare instead of productive entrepreneurs. As a black man myself , I can say that we as an ethnic minority have transcended from being slaves on a plantation to being masive wards of the state (government) .
    We have one half ( not exact percentage ) of America taking care of the other half because of the “entitlement ” mentality that permeates our society. Winston Churchil stated — ” While capitalism gives us unequal wealth , socialism gives us equal poverty “. I hate to admit it , but my people ( black people ) have been such “suckers” for the soclalist promulgators and purveyors of welfare dependency. Socialism does NOT encourage motivation to excell and invent and engage in entrepreneural enterprise because socialism opposes it.
    Obama is an embarrassment and a fraud. Obama is also in my opinion ANTI-AMERICAN and does not represent the entrepreneurel concept of what made America one of the most ( if not THE most advanced society in the world ).
    When I was a guest speaker at a secular humanist/freethought group seminar in Orlando, Florida , I was one of five speakers at the seminar/convention. At least three other people on the staff including two speakers boasted that they were socialists and the audience sat there bored to death listening to them. I was the last speaker and I was “cut off from speaking on free enterprise and capitalism”. I got a standing ovation for my speaking of atheism from a conservative perspective but as I stated before , I was never invited to speak again even though the audience loved me and came up to the microphone to give compliments and appreciation for my conservative secular delivery.
    So you see ladies and gentlemen , there are plenty of conservative atheists out there ( but they are hiding “in the closet” ) because the radical liberal left atheists have taken over the vast secular organizations in America. People want to hear our secular conservative voices ( and I am living proof from experience and witnessing ).
    It’s going to be a struggle and an uphill battle to get our secular conservative message out , but we must persevere and keep up the fight and continue to “carry the torch of light” for future generations.