By any business standard, the federal government is already bankrupt. Cash flow is negative and expenses are projected to outpace revenues for the foreseeable future. Debt is nearly half of total sales (tax revenues) and will surpass total sales within twenty years.
A "normal" person might scream, "What are you guys thinking?" It's taken me a while to figure it out, but I now realize why presidents and Congress continue to spend in the face of financial disaster. First, presidents, congressmen, and senators are rewarded for increasing spending and punished for opposing new spending bills.
My efforts to stop the bailout failed, in part because Republicans and Democrat leaders packed the bill with earmarks and targeted provisions for special interests. House and Senate leaders promised to pass a clean bill without unrelated measures and bot Obama and McCain urged swift action without add-ons. But after the House failed to pass the bailout on its first attempt, Senate leaders decided to go back to business as usual.
Conversely, when money goes to the government in the form of taxes, it increases the size of government and creates a permanent cost to taxpayers. Every dollar the government spends this year becomes part of the baseline budget for next year. All new spending is added onto last year's spending. So when the government takes a dollar in taxes, it eliminates the economic multiplier in the private sector and creates a permanent cost compounded over time by bigger government.
The various pieces of that-didn't-work-so-let's-try-this economic rescue legislation began with sending checks to selected Americans in the spring of 2008. Then more bailout money was appropriated for foreclosed homeowners, then home builders, then mortgage lenders, then Wall Street, then the unemployed, then road construction companies, then the American auto companies, then the auto unions. It was hard to keep trac of who was benefiting from all the knee-jerk legislation. Congress was just borrowing more money, throwing it at the wall and hoping something would stick. The American people didn't know all the details, but they knew enough to be angry.
The real question was whether to let the market work or have the government intervene. The answer was made more difficult by the fact that the government was already so involved that the market was not operating properly. Laws allowed labor unions to dominate the manufacturing industry, while government regulations added costs and reduced the competitiveness of American products. These factors contributed significantly to the problem of the American auto industry.
The president promised that if I withdrew my amendment, he would make sure the state flexibility provision would be added back at some point. I agreed to withdraw the amendment. The president said "trust me" when he promised the provision would be added back, but it never happened. The result of NCLB was more federal control of education and a lot more federal spending but no appreciable improvement in the quality of America's government-run education system
True socialists will jealously guard the universal, government-run education system and fight all attempts to create more choices with competitive, independent schools. That gives the government (and those who run the government) control over the values and beliefs of every generation. Freedom lovers believe parents should have many choices of schools, and the money spent on public education should follow students to the school of their choice.
Pres. Bush thought the requirements to measure programs in No Child Left Behind would improve schools. They didn't. In fact, many teachers tell me the effort to "teach the test" in order to meet the requirements of NCLB is actually resulting in poor education. We are losing ground to practically every other industrialized country in the world.
However, in the 1962 "Engel v. Vitale" case, the Supreme Court ruled against a New York school board requiring every class to start each day with a prayer. Unfortunately, the Court did more than ban God and prayer from public schools. It implicitly banned everything else included in the [daily prayer]: respect and honor for parents, teachers, and country. When the Supreme Court banned the teaching of respect for God, it effectively rejected the traditionalist worldview and replaced it with a secular-socialist worldview. The "Engel v. Vitale" case began a cascade of court decisions & legislative action at the federal level that have dismantled the "wall of virtue" that has served as the foundation of freedom in America for generations.
Faith, virtue, and morality are essential elements of the character of individuals. Our government cannot instill these characteristics into our children. American should, therefore, demand the freedom to teach religious concepts and to apply the values derived from faith. Freedom of speech must include teaching and saying that some things are right and some things are wrong based on religious convictions and commo sense. We cannot allow our government to promote immoral destructive behavior or to classify religion-based moral opinions as "hate speech."
The development of faith and values begins at home, but parents should be able to send their children to school that reinforce their worldviews. Churches should consider how they could expand their ministry vision to include education and citizenship training. Faith without applications is meaningless, just as "faith without works is dead" (James 2:26).
The teachers' unions, and most Democrats have consistently opposed this idea. Central control of education is essential to their goals of central control of our culture. Those who want to decentralize the control of education support the A-PLUS Act as a simple and logical step toward creating a better education system through innovation, competition, and choice.
The Zelman decision means government and state legislators now have freedom to provide vouchers or tax credits for children to attend any school their parents choose--government, private, or religious. Considering most states now spend more than $10,000 per year for every child in government schools, even a $5,000 scholarship to independent schools would simulate the development of a wide range of new school choices.
Vouchers would encourage massive private-sector investments in America's education system. Rather than hurt public education, school choice would increase the number and quality of schools available to the public.
It is actually quite amazing that there is any debate in America on the value of freedom versus socialism. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a definitive rejection of the principles of a socialized economy and culture. China and India were backward economies until capitalism began to raise the standard of living of their citizens. There is no example in the world or from any time in history where the principles of socialism actually worked.
My goal is to expose the historical failures of socialism and to help Americans see how socialistic policies have incrementally worked their way into all areas of American life.
As America attempts to sell our brand of freedom to the world, it is critical we evaluate the quality of the product we are selling. We have spent trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to establish freedom here and abroad. New democracies all over the world are looking to America as their example. It has never been more important that we understand what freedom is and what must be done to allow it to work
As the debt & dependency of people and the government increased, America found itself in difficult times in the last years o the 1970s. Pres. Carter attempted to blame both the people and the government.
Carter missed the real cause of America's problems. Government was trying to do too much. Government becomes incapable of acting when it attempts to serve a large number of particular needs rather than promoting the general welfare. When the federal government began to involve itself in planning & directing specific aspects of America's culture & economy, it was inevitable there would be destructive & costly consequences.
History has shown that it is impossible for governments to manage the economic and social structure of society without diminishing economic progress and severely restricting the freedoms of individuals. Nevertheless, the political promise of equal outcomes and security by the political class has lured many Americans into the trap of government dependency. We seem to have forgotten that freedom has a price, and that price is hard work and risk.
When government attempts to insulate the people from the normal risks of life, it diminishes the energy and productivity that come from work, struggle, and persistence.
So I began my political career believing earmarking was a harmless and important way to represent my district. After a few years in Congress, my mind began to change as I saw the damage the practice of earmarking was doing to our government and country. It became clear that asking for earmarks for my state stood in direct contradiction to my solemn oath to defend the Constitution.
I was hooked, and like all bad habits it took me a while to break it. Now I'm a recovering earmarker on a crusade to stop this practice because I believe it is the main driver to wasteful government spending and our growing debt.
In 2008, I tried to pass a one-year moratorium on earmarks, but it failed after the leadership of both parties maneuvered appropriators to pressure members to oppose the bill. But we're making progress. Americans are beginning to catch on and more are beginning to oppose earmarks.
All this is not to say people of other religions cannot participate freely in an America with a Judeo-Christian foundation. Everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, will benefit from the freedom, prosperity, and security created when cultural and political institutions are founded on Christian principles.
Secularists will howl that I am suggesting our government promote the Christian faith. NOT AT ALL! I don't want the government to have anything to do with religion.
I am suggesting that the biblical principles of traditional marriage, temperance, minimizing borrowing, and many more must guide the policies of government. History makes a strong case that without adherence to Judeo-Christian principles, the foundations of freedom will crumble.
The challenge is daunting, but Americans need not be discouraged. The damage done by bad government policy can be corrected with policy changes that reduce dependency. America must end its addiction to programs, subsidies, rescues, and bailouts that lead to debt and dependency. We must constantly remind ourselves that the more we ask of government, the less we have of freedom. The principle of individual responsibility and independence is the foundation of freedom awe must protect and defend at all costs. Americans must force the government to be our servant or it will be our master.
On the night of the vote in the House, my team--the opponents of the bill--appeared to have won. But the Republican leadership finally twisted enough arms (and promised enough "projects") to get the votes they needed to pass the bill. Today a large majority of senior citizens are dependent on the federal government for their health care and prescription medication, the Medicare program is trillions of dollars in debt.
Those with a group focus prefer a universal, one-size-fits-all, government-directed, health-care system Conversely, a focus on the individual will demand that people have their choice of affordable health-care plans that they can own and keep from job to job and into retirement.
Most of the spending has been taken from funds that should have been used for the primary constitutional responsibility of the federal government--defense. Military spending dropped from 43% in 1966 to 20% in 2006. While "smart bombs" and other new high-tech weapons systems have lulled Americans into a false sense of security, our military is fighting with one hand tied behind its back. So much of our military spending is directed by political earmarks from congressmen and senators with parochial interests that we make it harder for our military leaders to develop coherent plans to defend our nation.
My point is this: There is a terrible cost to unrestrained government spending and debt. Part of that cost is the neglect of real national priorities such as defense.
Americans welcome legal immigrants from all over the world. But ignoring the rule of law in the name of compassion undermines legitimate government. Demanding that the federal government enforce ou laws does not mean Americans are anti-immigrant; it means we want a workable, enforceable immigration system that honors those who follow a legal path when they come to our country. That is how we will save freedom for all Americans, including immigrants
Few in America and in Congress would call themselves socialists. They believe they are liberals, progressives, Democrats, compassionate conservatives, moderate Republicans, or obedient religious adherents.
While they would never admit it, most members of Congress lean toward socialist policies. They're not involved in a conspiracy. Nor are they intent on destroying freedom. They are patriotic Americans who want the best for our country and our people, but they just don't understand how freedom works, and they don't understand the dangers of socialism.
The socialist principles of "equality" and "justice" sound like ideas we should all support, but the socialists' definition of equality is not equality of opportunities but an equality of outcomes. They are not speaking of equal justice under law. Socialists promote a more arbitrary "affirmative justice" government action to combat perceived discrimination or suspected prejudice. To save freedom, Americans must understand these advocates of government-imposed social and economic justice want to transform America into a social democracy that whether they know it or not, advances the cause of socialism.
It is not an overstatement to say freedom describes the highest state of human existence. For more than 2 centuries, this elusiv treasure has thrived in the US. Freedom is hard to define. We can't see it or touch it. Yet freedom has been written about and spoken of throughout history as the height of individual achievement and the ultimate goal of civilization.
By all objective measures freedom is on the decline in America. The philosophy of socialism has crept into almost every aspect of American life, and this philosophy has slowly and indiscernibly stripped many American of their prosperity, dignity, and hope for the future.
This personal conflict encouraged me to think more clearly about the difference between a secular government and a secular society. One is good; the other is destructive. We do notwant a government that represents a particular religion or forces a particular religion on its people. Our government should be religion-neutral or secular.
But we also do not want a government that purges religion from society. We do not want a government that prohibits religious-based moral judgments by individuals or private institutions. We do not want a government that excludes constructive values and principles. And we do not a government that promotes destructive behaviors opposed to the traditional values of our nation.
My campaign platform was bold and naive. People should own their Social Security accounts, and the money they pay in Social Security taxes should be saved in a personal account the government can't spend. People should have the freedom to own a health insurance policy they can afford and keep from job to job. Parents should have many more choices of schools, and the money we spend on public education should follow the student and not be reserved solely for government-run schools. And finally, we should eliminate the personal income tax and the IRS.
Those who see individuals as incapable of making good decisions want a universal, government-owned, national pension plan (Social Security) with all retired Americans dependent (at least in part) on the government for their income. Those who understand how freedom works will fight for the right of every American to have a personal Social Security account they own and the government can't spend.
The first income tax was 1% of all income more than $3,000, and politicians assured the people the tax would never exceed a few percentage points. The framers avoided income taxes because they knew taxes on personal property would quickly become discriminatory and a means of confiscating wealth. Transactional taxes are "blind" to any preferences and simplify the tax code by keeping it singularly focused on raising revenues rather than shaping society.
My concern about America's growing dependence on government was the reason I ran for Congress. Dependency was not your typical "get them on their feet," crowd-pleasing speech material. Eyes glazed over when I spoke about dependency.
Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid make up 53% of all dependency-related federal spending. These programs will increase to nearly 65% over the next two decades as baby boomers retire.
The larger the number of dependent voters and the fewer who pay taxes, the less likely politicians will have the political courage to stop the growth of dependency-creating programs. The majority of voters are already more interested in federal spending than tax cuts.
Like most other business owners, I served as a volunteer for many charitable organizations. Civic responsibility and Christian duty compelled me and an army of volunteers to help those in need. It was hardly sacrificial or drudgery. There were no lines between business activity, social events, and volunteerism.
I saw how volunteerism provided the vision and backbone for our community. I also saw how many of the problems we faced as a community were the result of a well-intentioned but misguided government policies. No government program was ever as effective as a determined volunteer effort. It was impossible, however, to keep the unintended consequences of government from diminishing the good we were trying to accomplish.
"I, Jim DeMint, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
There is nothing in this oath about representing my district and state or helping the poor and downtrodden. There was nothing about responding to the woes of the American people. There was no list of duties because everything we were supposed to do in Congress was written in the Constitution. All federal officers & members of the armed services all take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It must have been really important at one time.
I am not making a case against charity and compassion. Quite the opposite, government redistribution of wealth actually destroys the positive impulses and outcomes of voluntary charity. Instead of every American sharing some responsibility to help those less fortunate, that responsibility is shifted to only the richest citizens who are vilified for their success. Instead of gratitude, the beneficiaries of government charity develop a sense of entitlement. They come to believe they have a right to government beneficence, instead of a responsibility to work for their own sustenance.
Despite the trillions of dollars "redistributed" by government since the inception of welfare programs, there are more poor Americans than ever before.
In this case the government is not attempting to control the outcome but to encourage constructive behavior by lowering the cost of voluntary activities that benefit society as a whole. The people are free to decide what activities work best. I have seen this approach work, resulting in many local partnerships between business groups, churches, community groups, hospitals, and local governments. This is a "freedom solution."
Government should encourage all kinds of constructive voluntary behaviors and organizations throughout society and ensure that safety nets are in place for those who cannot help themselves and are not helped by voluntary efforts.
Dependency-based social programs always expand and attract more people into dependency. People learn how to beat the system. They learn how long they have to work before they can quit and collect unemployment insurance. They learn how to get signatures from employers to prove they are trying to get another job. Then they go back to work long enough to start the cycle over again.
Seniors are the largest new group of government dependents. Even wealthy seniors get a Social Security check whether they need it or not.
|
The above quotations are from Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America's Slide into Socialism, by Sen. Jim DeMint. Click here for other excerpts from Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America's Slide into Socialism, by Sen. Jim DeMint. Click here for other excerpts by Jim DeMint. Click here for a profile of Jim DeMint.
Jim DeMint on other issues: |
Abortion
|
Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade
Govt. Reform
| Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
| Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||||||