“To preserve our
independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual
debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or
profusion and servitude.”
— Thomas Jefferson
This year, we made our
election between economy and liberty, or debt and foolishness. Voted
for the latter.
I was angry on behalf
of my grandchildren, who will be burdened with the debt because of
the foolishness, and initially blamed the social conservatives whose
positions turn off a majority of women and young voters. But now I
think that if these soc-cons didn’t exist, the Democrats would have
invented them. Having no record of economic achievement, or hopes
realized, President Barack Obama had to change the subject, and I
can recall the moment this happened.
I’ve never liked the
“blame the media” game but can’t deny it here: The Romney “fix the
economy” campaign was proceeding effectively through the primaries
until the debate hosted by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, which he
opened with a question to Romney about contraception. The candidate,
along with viewers, responded with bewilderment to the introduction
of a subject that hasn’t been controversial in several decades:
“Why,” Mitt asked, “are we talking about contraception?”
No reason, except that
much of the rest of the Obama-worshipping media dutifully marched to
Stephanopoulos’ lead into the “War on Women” with its irrelevant
issue of “women’s reproductive rights.” These weren’t really
threatened, yet positioned Republican candidates, even those who are
pro-choice, as “anti-women.” Incredible as this might seem, it drove
out most discussion of the only real issue, the growth of government
into $16 trillion plus of unsustainable national debt.
That growing debt makes
all other issues irrelevant: With severe annual deficits, we can’t
deal adequately with the infrastructure, national defense, health
care, or the environment and education concerns of young voters. Yet
a majority of voters chose Democrats over Republicans because they
were told that the latter “don’t relate to people like you.” “The
rich,” the 1 percent that pay 40 percent of the income taxes that
fund what does get funded, were vilified. And yes, “gifts” were
given or promised to various constituency groups. Some of these
groups will be on the bottom of the heap when the economy collapses
under the weight of the debt, but they foolishly think the word
“entitlement” will hold them harmless.
I don’t recall any
presidential election in which the loser was still being attacked
three weeks later, for a remark made in private to his supporters:
Romney said that “gifts” from Obama helped the Democrats win
re-election.
He was just repeating
the common conservative wisdom that “once voters discover they can
vote themselves largesse from the public treasury ... the majority
always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits.” People
debate who first said that, but no one has provided evidence that it
isn’t true.
What would make it
false would be an understanding on the part of all voters that the
money for the largesse can’t be borrowed indefinitely, and that we
and our grandchildren will be paying in the future with loss of
vital services or extraordinarily high taxes when the debt and
unfunded liabilities reach critical mass. This is the message that
Republicans should have doubled down on, and never been distracted
from, and won with.
So here we are, on the
edge of “the fiscal cliff,” and speaking of taxes:
As Romney fades away
into what I hope will be a happy, family-centered future, a new
enemy is needed, and the Chosen Villain is: Grover Norquist, holder
of the
“no new taxes” pledge that many U.S. senators and congressmen
have made to their constituents. On Sunday morning TV, political
analyst Matthew Dowd called him “an impediment; the only good thing
about Grover is he’s named for a character on Sesame Street.”
Such cleverness, as we
face “the fiscal cliff” over which we plunge on Dec. 31 if our
government hasn’t dealt with the deficit. It’s been a year since
Obama ignored Simpson-Bowles, the first “blended” plan to cut
spending, reform entitlements and raise revenues: In lieu of
presidential/congressional action, the so-called “Bush tax cuts”
will expire, the alternative minimum tax and death tax will hit the
middle class hard, and there will be dramatic sudden cuts in
military and entitlement spending.
Grover is holding
signers to their pledge of “no new taxes.” The AARP is opposing
reforms of Social Security and Medicare. Unions are demanding
protection of benefits, higher tax rates on “the rich.” Some
Republicans are demanding that serious cuts and reforms occur before
they vote for taxes on anyone. Based on “budget deals” in 1982 and
1990, in which once the taxes were raised, the spending cuts didn’t
happen, the Republicans are right to hold out.
We need a complete
overhaul/simplification of the federal tax system, removing many
loopholes. Any revenue increases should be earmarked for paying down
the national debt, not spent on new/expanded programs, “stimulus
plans” or bailouts.
As I see it, there are
two alternatives: major economic discomfort now, or complete
collapse later. Don’t overdo the Christmas shopping; you’ll need
every penny you’ve saved.
