Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
That's the charge coming out of this new (Washington Post/Harvard) poll:
most Americans who say they want more limited government also call Social Security and Medicare “very important.” They want Washington to be involved in schools and to help reduce poverty. Nearly half want the government to maintain a role in regulating health care.
The study suggests that come January, politicians in both parties will confront a challenging and sometimes contradictory reality about what Americans really think about their government. Although Republicans, and many Democrats, have tried to demonize Washington, they must contend with the fact that most major government programs remain enormously popular, including some that politicians have singled out for stiff criticism.
Here's something different this study could suggest: Americans want to break our national addiction to entitlement spending. But they know that'll restore some burdens. And they're already feeling pretty burdened. It's not incoherence at work. It's a recognition that things have gotten so bad that it's going to hurt to steer our federal governance back toward our founding principles. Who wants to volunteer to feel that pain? More than mere discomfort or emotional distress, we're talking something akin to -- at best -- personal financial ruin.
The solution? This very poll makes it plain. Jobs. People are hesitant to translate their political dreams into practice because the employment picture (theirs; their neighborhood's; their state's; their country's) is disturbingly bleak. Desperation reinforces the powerful notion that government can create jobs by spending magic money. But look about you, America. How's that working? Washington needs to make way for a real alternative to Obamanomics. The realization needs to set in that Obamanomics can't solve the jobs problem. And anyone who wants to move from wistfully dreaming of small government to seeing the dream come alive ought to help that realization along.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLD6VChcWCE maybe this will help the confused
Aug '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
WAPO/ Harvard poll ????
Of what polling base ? Random polling of customers at the COOP ?
Farragut Station at 830AM ?
No, we don't want the fed in the schools, or trying to "reduce poverty" , we have BIG doubts about their ability to admin SocSec or Medicare ! There aren't any enormously popular programs, only programs that send money to enormous numbers of people !
What a teasing way to co-opt the independents . Such a sad attempt at planting a red herring. Sort of like this headline : " Republicans Count On Democrats as Neighbors, Work Towards Common Goals",and it turns out the goal was getting a dead raccoon out of the cul-de-sac.
Aug '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
James Poulos, Ed.: That's the charge coming out of this new (Washington Post/Harvard) poll:
Being "very important" isn't the same thing as being desirable, at least not the last time I checked. Many things become "very important" not because they're desirable, but because they're so problematic.
If someone asked me whether Soc Sec and Medicare were "very important", I'd say yes: these two entitlements are causing absolutely huge problems. But that doesn't mean I like 'em.
OK, "involved". But more or less involved than Washington is now? Less, anyone? Surely, less still means something.
Perhaps many Americans believe some federal involvement in these things is inevitable -- after all, that's the way it's "always been" and it's hard to imagine anything else.
Hayek and Friedman allowed that some welfare state was probably inevitable, and even acceptable. Does that make them secretly in love with the Nanny State?
Edited on Oct 11, 2010 at 8:58amJun '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
There are all kinds of things that individuals need help with, but you don't start looking for solutions at the federal level. You start with your family, your church, your county government, your state, and finally, if the problem is bigger than all of those intermediate institutions can handle, then you go to the federal government. Can your state design and build an interstate highway system by itself? No. But can your local school district, or even your church, with a little guidance from your state, educate your child? Yes. There's no excuse for having a Federal Department of Education. None whatsoever.
Jul '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
We've heard this premise time and again: "The very same voters who say they want smaller government love the programs and entitlements that flow out of Washington."
Putting it rather more starkly: "Watch out, Republican politicians - the same voters who tell you they want small government will turn on you if you touch their 'benefits'."
And the Republicans fell for it time and time again, because they lacked the guts and communication skills to tell the truth about our unsustainable entitlement programs.
Now, for the first time, a substantial portion of the populace really does understand that Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes - and they're open to orderly reform.
If the Republicans continue to listen to specious arguments from the likes of the Washington Post instead of an awakened, informed Tea Party public, they'll simply go back to kicking the can down the road to ruin.
Aug '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
I agree, Etoile. But for many Americans, I imagine that the simple fact that the DoE has been around their whole lives blinds them to the possibility that we'd be better off without it. The DoE has entrenched itself as a standard topic of American political debate, and well... it's hard not to get used to it. The idea of axing it mutates into something almost taboo, shocking. Almost like offing a disagreeable relative whose very disagreeableness has become a staple of family life.
That's the problem with all pathological government involvement. It's hard not to get used to it. It takes vision to see life another way.
Edited on Oct 11, 2010 at 9:12amMay '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
That's what I find so contradictory about signs I see at Tea Party events. They want smaller government and fiscal responsibility, but carry signs like "Hands Off My Medicare." I have no expectation that I will ever benefit from Social Security or Medicare, since I doubt there will be any money left when I retire. And the reform proposals do little to negatively impact the greatest drain on entitlements - the Boomers. I just don't believe anyone who is over 65 and wants smaller government. They want me to have a smaller government, but they're gonna cash their SS checks, dang it. When Boomers start practicing what they preach, I'll believe them. They didn't have enough children to have a workforce to subsidize their benefits. So, don't tell me I'm coddling my kids. They raised a generation of kids who don't save for retirement, who won't even grow up and move out, yet criticize federal employees for making too much. It's all so unbelievably hypocritical and inauthentic. Boomers still have time to make up for their inability to lead by example, but I don't have much confidence that they will.
Edited on Oct 11, 2010 at 9:42amMay '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
Social Security reform will have to be as gradual as its implementation. Those who have made their living as being self-employed have paid 14% of their income into the program for too long. If they could have invested this money themselves they wouldn't need SS.
Jun '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
Damn, that's going to leave a mark! As a Boomer not too many years from retirement, I wish I could dispute any point in your excellent post. I don't know that I have ever seen a cogent argument that my generation was defensible on any level.
May '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
As I said, Karen, it's hard to save when you're self employed and the government confiscates 14% of your income in FICA taxes alone.
I've got four. Does that mean I get a dispensation?
Jul '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
Karen: It's all so unbelievably hypocritical and inauthentic. Boomers still have time to make up for their inability to lead by example, but I don't have much confidence that they will. · Oct 11 at 9:27am
Edited on Oct 11 at 09:42 am
Excuse me, but "boomers" spent a lifetime having 13% of their earnings confiscated by a government Ponzi scheme that promised to pay them a pittance in retirement. That wasn't a choice they made; it was forced upon them.
Had they been allowed to invest that money in the private sector, most would now have very substantial retirement nest eggs, which would yield much more annual income than they will ever see from Social Security.
I think it's rather cheeky to characterize them now as "hypocritical and inauthentic".
I'm sorry you came late to the Ponzi scheme, but to tar people who came before you as selfish, when all they did was comply with a lousy system, is offensive.
Jul '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
EJHill
As I said, Karen, it's hard to save when you're self employed and the government confiscates 14% of your income in FICA taxes alone.
I've got four. Does that mean I get a dispensation? · Oct 11 at 10:18am
No, because you get child tax credits that the childless don't.
May '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
But there are no "child credits" for FICA.
On the upside, by having four of the little crumbcrunchers, each of them will only be responsible to take care of their indigent parents three months at a time. I hope at least one of them ends up in clime that's warm in January.
Jun '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
EJHill
But there are no "child credits" for FICA.
On the upside, by having four of the little crumbcrunchers, each of them will only be responsible to take care of their indigent parents three months at a time. I hope at least one of them ends up in clime that's warm in January. · Oct 11 at 11:06am
EJ, That's very convenient if you can get them located properly:.. Winter, spring , summer, or fall,
All you have to do is call
And I'll be there, yeah, yeah, yeah.
-- James Taylor
Jul '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
EJHill
But there are no "child credits" for FICA.
On the upside, by having four of the little crumbcrunchers, each of them will only be responsible to take care of their indigent parents three months at a time. I hope at least one of them ends up in clime that's warm in January. · Oct 11 at 11:06am
You know, EJ, I'm in the business of providing in-home care to elderly clients. Here's what I find: those elderly people who can afford my services are willing to pay for it, rather than go into "assisted living".
But when their adult children are part of the decision-making process, they balk: either they don't want to contribute to the costs of care or they don't want their parents to spend down their inheritance.
What often happens is that, rather than contract for service by my carefully-screened, insured, bonded caregivers, the "children" opt either to do nothing or, this being California, they hire illegal aliens to look after mom.
Better learn Spanish, EJ.
Sep '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
Great post, as this is THE QUESTION OF OUR TIME I would like to humbly offer what I think is the road map.
1) Republicans make good on their promise to roll back discretionary spending to 2008 levels. Even if this means across the board and even if this includes defense. This will of course probably fail becuase of presidential veto power.
2) Assuming we are successful on part one, we then tackle social security with a combination of bigger raises in the full benefits age, adjustments in the cost of living adjustments, and maybe even means testing. Dems will respond as they are now by saying Republicans are mean and want to kill Grandma, but if we have made good on discretionary spending then we will have credibility going in.
3) Assuming we get to this point we can then parley our credibility into tackling Medicaire.
May '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
I'm sure that's true with a lot of children but both my wife and I have tried to lead by example. I took care of my mom right to the end and my wife's parents live with us the three months of the year that they don't spend with her sister. That is no guarantee, of course, but it gives us a better than average chance.
What you describe is most unfortunate. We've made every relationship disposable, babies, spouses and parents. That's why the culture war is every bit as important as the political war.
Aug '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
I hate to say it, but I think the post is largely true. Or at least, it's the biggest unknown regarding the true willingness of the tea party to address the biggest problems facing government.
It's easy to be against discretionary spending (of some kinds) and to be against earmarks and pork. It's also seductive to believe that you can solve your problems without pain, by getting rid of 'waste, fraud and abuse' and the other guy's benefit programs. And of course, this is always how politicians promise to fix the problems.
However, the current problems are not repairable without pain. I'm sorry you paid in all your life and expect to get your benefits, but you won't. There isn't enough money. Your government spent it. The earlier the electorate understands that and accepts real, painful cuts to benefits they paid for and expect to get, the better.
Social security can be fixed with modest changes. A slight reduction in benefits, increasing the retirement age by a couple of years starting for people who are still more than five years from retirement.
The real elephant in the room is Medicare.
Aug '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
The coming collapse of Medicare is the result of two negative trends converging together: The rising cost of health care, and the aging of the population.
Health care costs are rising for many reasons. For one, we have an increasing number of treatments available for the sick. For another, the population is aging, and it's the elderly who consume the most health care resources. This means a rapidly increasing demand for health care services.
In a normal market, supply would increase to match as prices made health care delivery a more lucrative field. But markets in health care are broken because there are too many third party payers in the middle (government and insurance companies) and too many rent-seeking special interests controlling supply and tying the hands of health providers with regulations and lawsuits.
If the trend continues, Medicare will eventually consume the entire U.S. budget. It's clearly unsustainable. The fixes are not trivial, but involve real cuts or huge fee increases.
It seems to me the only way out of the medicare mess is to means-test medicare benefits, and the general cost of health care needs to be addressed through serious regulatory reform.
Edited on Oct 11, 2010 at 1:20pmMay '10
Re: Small-Government Americans: Incoherent?
I think SS is in worse shape than that. Remember, FICA funds were never supposed to be available for the general fund. Then they mandated that the SSA was to use their surpluses to buy US Treasuries. That's how Clinton "balanced" his budget. They moved the numbers from the public debt column to the one labeled "Intergovernmental Holdings."
The SSA is could be left holding a lot of Treasury Bonds that aren't worth the paper they're printed on.