Are Liberals Selfish?

The prototypical characterization of a Liberal is usually someone who is more altruistic and cares more about people than a Republican. But is that really true or are Liberals actually far more selfish than Republicans?

Completely contrary to "conventional wisdom", I would argue that those who favor wealth transfers via entitlement programs paid for by increased taxes on only a small percentage of the population and by government borrowings (with a future repayment date) are the truly selfish ones. I say small percentage as the top 20% to 30% of income-earners pay 70% to 80% of the taxes or more while at the same time the bottom 50% of earners pay virtually no income taxes.

With that as backdrop, is it really fair or equitable for the government to fund programs that will only benefit the current generation when subsequent generations will actually have to pay for the cost through higher taxes and repayment of the mounting debt used to fund perennial budget shortfalls? I think the answer is obvious to any fair-minded person. Because such a person would necessarily believe that is would not be fair to use his money to pay for someone's else lifestyle or profligate ways. If this is true with respect to a personal budget, how can it not also be true for the federal government's budget as well?

Take the grandaddies of all entitlement programs: Social Security and Medicare. While those programs work quite well for the current recipients, it is undeniable that the present systems is unsustainable. FICA or other taxes will have to be increased as will age limits for eligibility. Services will likely decline as well. But where is the sacrifice of the current beneficiaries, especially those who can afford to pay a higher share of the burden? Nowhere, as no contribution or sacrifice is expected of them, even those of them that can afford to pay part of the cost.

While most beneficiaries will argue that since they paid what was required of them at the time into the system that they should not be required to withstand a cut in benefits, this argument fails to take into account the extended projected life spans and sheer number of prospective workers available to fund the entitlement benefits to current recipients as opposed to what was originally contemplated.

It is not new information to point out that at the time of Social Security's creation, there were approximately sixteen workers paying FICA taxes for each recipient and the projected life span and overall benefits to a retiree were substantially lower. (In other words, it was expected that most people would die before even collecting any benefits.) But this implicit, if not explicit assumptions, upon which Social Security was enacted has never been seriously readjusted even though such assumptions are constantly reexamined for a private pension fund.

And the ever-increasing cost of Medicare is actually being paid by current workers not current recipients. As Medicare costs have risen so has the portion of ordinary income taxed to fund those benefits. It is likely that Medicare funding will continue to rise via the amount and percentage of compensation taxed. That had already become that pattern with Social Security and Medicare within the last decade or so; Indeed, Medicare no longer has any limit on the amount of personal service income taxable to sustain its funding.

There are numerous other examples of government largess being expended today that will effectively have to be paid for in the future. Why does this happen? Principally because the recipients of those programs aren't paying for them out of their pocket but they are stalwart supporters of and voters for politicians who keep handing out the benefits. So, the issue of generational fairness is often trumped by the political expediency of reelection concerns.

For this country to return to a sound economic footing, we must stop incurring debts beyond our ability to pay for them currently. It is an outrage that today's politicians focus solely or almost exclusively on the non-contributing beneficiaries as their constituency as opposed to the people who are paying the bill.

While the needs of a society will always seem to trump its ability to pay for them. The tide has swung so disproportionately in the other direction as to engender alienation and cynicism of the political process to those who resources are forever being drained to fund programs that will either not exist in the future or, if they do, in a much more limited form. And for those politicians, for the most Liberals or Progressives, that wittingly, self-righteously and methodically promote this sort of government sponsorship as being in the "common good", they can only be viewed as selfish to those who will bear the burden of their irresponsible actions of today.

Liberals and the "It's About Time" Attitude

Something occurred to me tonight as I watched the end of the Academy Awards broadcast. Barbra Streisand while announcing the "Best Director" award to a woman said: "It's about time!" I thought: It's about time that a woman won the award for Best Director because she was a woman? My question was only prompted by her need to qualify the woman's achievement or to frame it in a sexist construct. Otherwise, I frankly wouldn't have thought about it.

This "It's about time" mentality is the same mentality that was frequently cited by Liberals when Barack Obama was running for President for his election -- It's about time that an African-American was elected President of the United States -- as if that were a reason or argument. It's the same mentality that has been used by Liberals in politics and in the workforce and in education for a long time to justify an action that, perhaps, on its own merits may not stand up to scrutiny.

I am not suggesting that the selection of a woman as Best Director or that Barack Obama's election as President was based on their diversity rather than her or his qualifications. Quite to the contrary. Rather, I think it is sort of an insult to preface someone's achievements with the qualifier "It's about time" if it is said as "code" for "entitlement", rather than an acknowledgment of something that strictly from a historical perspective took a long time to happen. Sadly, the former is often how it is used principally.

While that phraseology may have been more appropriate when there was blatant racism or sexism in corporate America or education institutions or where there were prohibitions, carved into the law and custom, against the hiring or acceptance of blacks, women, Jews, Catholics, etc. because of that very status, it is quite another thing to continually lament even after the election of the first black to the presidency and the vast numbers of women and blacks and Asians, for example, in senior positions in corporations and in a wide array of industries, and as doctors and lawyers and other professions, that "It's about time."

"It's about time" signifies just the opposite of when someone, anyone, regardless of race, creed or religion, is qualified or has earned a distinction separate and apart for one's diversity identifier. It lessens the achievements of those whose identifier is completely irrelevant to their success, baggage which suggests that "but for that identifier" the person wouldn't be where he is today.

It is not surprising that Streisand would make such a comment. She is a classic limousine liberal who almost expects the audience to cheer when she ignorantly uses the expression "It's about time" almost as a compliment. It is no such thing. It is, in fact, the perpetuation of a stereotype that over the years has continually abated, in law and costom and general human interaction, and will continue to abate. It is a non-issue for the majority of Americans lest 53% of them would not have voted for Barack Obama.

There is also a danger of making any argument when one's perspective is in a significant way guided by the "It's about time" mentality. Such an individual is looking to use diversity as a qualifying characteristic.

Should a woman or a black or a black women or a Muslim or whomever (who is not a while male) get a job, award or special consideration because of that fact alone? In the world of Liberal politics and policies the answer still appears to be "yes" for the Steisands of the world. These types of people are truly dangerous once "merit" becomes less important or no more important than all other color-blind characteristics of a person.

The Real Cost of Progressivism

Students -- Wake up! You are not immune from the travails of the U.S. economy or the policies of the government. If you're angry about budget cuts to public education, wait until you see what happens with Medicare and Social Security. By the time you are eligible for these programs, they will either be bankrupt or a shadow of their current selves.

There are consequences to the progressive agenda. And it's about time you started learning about them. Progressivism is just a euphemism for "creeping socialism", for greater government involvement in the economic affairs of this country as well as many of its social benefits such as education, healthcare, social security, unemployment compensation, welfare and food stamps. All of these "entitlements" cost money. They have to be paid for either from tax receipts or borrowings.

Taxes should be designed to pay the current costs of operating the government. Borrowings should only be used to fund long-term benefits lasting beyond one tax year. In that way, the cost of the benefit will be spread over its useful life and the taxpayers of today and in the future will all contribute because all of them benefit.

What is going on in the current economic crisis is that costs continue to be incurred that can't be paid from current income (i.e., tax receipts). So, instead of deferring or cutting non-essential expenses, the government continues to borrow more money from foreign sources knowing full well that the current generation is not going to have to repay the bill and associated interest. That cost will be borne by future generations who received no benefit from such cost and will ultimately bankrupt this country once the interest on the national debt makes it impossible to continue borrowing or fund current governmental expenses.

So, dear students, remember that if you are inclined to fight against cuts to education which directly affect you now, you should be equally inclined to do so against those programs and expenditures that you will be forced to pay for in the future without any benefit to you. That is the consequence of progressivism in a nutshell.

Another Reason Our Allies Must Accept More Military Responsibility

When one doesn't have to pay the bill, it is easy to be oblivious to the cost and sacrifices of others. This has been a burgeoning problem with respect to the monetary and human costs of the United States for being largely responsible for providing for the defense of our allies since World War II.

Initially, this was an appropriate role for the U.S. to play. Europe and Japan were physically devastated after the War and necessarily their focus was on rebuilding their countries with U.S. assistance. The U.S. was also concerned about the re-arming of our former enemies, Japan and West Germany. The U.S.S.R. was a threat that only the U.S. could thwart in the aftermath of the War.

But much has happened in the 65 years since then. Japan now has the world's second largest economy and Germany ranks third. Europe has restored itself and largely prospered and flourished while the Soviet Union crumbled. None of this would have been possible without the strong and reliable support of the U.S. But, although time has marched on, Europe has still now assume its fair share for the defense of themselves and the West, nor have they shouldered the cost of the U.S. defense presence on their soil. Whereas this once made sense, it no longer does anymore.

Additionally, the lack of Japan and European contributions to their own defense has been largely taken for granted because the U.S. was primarily footing the bill. And therein lies the rub. Our allies have continued to benefit from the U.S. expenditures on defense so as to be immunized from the true cost of their own freedom and liberty. Perhaps if our allies bore their share of the defense burden, they would have to make tough choices about their own priorities, which for too long they have shunted away.

Leave Japan to Its Own Defenses

Why does the U.S. still have 50,000 troops in Japan more than almost 65 years after the end of World War II? And what are they doing there when the Japanese public in Okinawa doesn't even want them there?

The U.S. has a deeply-rooted superiority complex or, dare I say, an imperialist complex that no longer makes sense at this time in history. It was logical after WWII that the U.S. would maintain a presence in Japan to ensure that our former enemy did not re-arm itself and as a buffer to the Soviet Union. But that time has past. Japan is a steadfast ally of the U.S., it has the world's second largest economy and the U.S.S.R is a relic of its former self. Yet, the U.S. persists in the notion that we are the policemen of the world. We can no longer afford this indulgence

If Japan is able to provide for its own defense, then it should do so. If not, it should bear all of the costs of the U.S. presence there if it wants us to remain. The U.S. has borne the brunt of the defense costs of the Westernized world since the Great War. We have spent trillions more in gross dollars and also as a percentage of our GDP than any of our Western allies. This kind of thinking and pattern of behavior must stop if for no other reason than we cannot afford it when our allies are not even paying anywhere near their fair share.

Europe, consistent with all of its socialist tendencies, has become too dependent on the U.S. to act as its de facto "war" army and has not shouldered, economically or in manpower or other resources, its burden of the responsibility for its own defense. We must reverse this course not only for our own legitimate fiscal and political reasons but also to encourage our European and Asian allies to start standing on their own feet to a much greater extent militarily.

Healthcare Debate Should Be Informed By Postal Service Model

In the zeal to pass so-called healthcare reform, the Democrats initially tried to ramrod through Congress a "public option", whereby the government would manage a single payer system or the government would regulate most aspects of healthcare service delivery and insurance. This "land-grab" was modified by the Senate and over time rejected by the American public. Cynically and brooking no opposition, the Democrats wanted to act as quickly as possible to transform one-sixth of the American economy before anyone really had a chance to understand its details.

But the passage of time allows the dust to settle and sunshine to act as a "disinfectant", according to Justice Brandeis. So, as the process slowed a bit, more and more faults of the healthcare plan came to light and it wasn't pretty, particularly since it did virtually nothing to control costs except to mandate reductions of government-sponsored medical reimbursement rates. Of course, this brilliant idea didn't take into account that doctors and other medical professionals are free actors and might not take too kindly to reduced pay as the supposed panacea to increase the number of people covered by health insurance.

In many respects, the U.S. Postal Service suffers from the same "public option" maladies as these proposed healthcare schemes. For most of its history, it had a complete monopoly on the delivery of mail throughout the United States. But whenever competing alternatives have arisen by virtue of sheer entrepreneurship, circumstance or technology, the result has always been the same -- the Postal Service could not and would not reform itself to compete despite the many competitive advantages in its favor.

For example, UPS started as a messenger company in 1907, an alternative to use of the Postal Service. Over time, more and more people and business began to rely on UPS for delivery of all many of parcels and goods because it was efficient and reliable even if it cost more than a comparable service available by the Postal Service. Now, UPS and Federal Express and many other companies compete for the delivery of packages and overnight courier mail despite the availability of special delivery.

This has occurred inexorably because the Postal Service never responded to the challenges of the free market and simply assumed that it would either get its fair share of business to be self-sustaining without providing a comparable level of service in the areas in which it was required to compete.

Its last bastion of dominance is regular mail or direct mail advertisements. But with the advent of the fax machine and e-mail, demand for the former has waned with each passing year and with respect to the latter, the costs have become prohibitive to justify the quantities previously enjoyed.

But what has been the government's response? Higher labor costs and faltering services as the workforce has fallen. Instead of demanding and requiring more from its workers and the entire postal service bureaucracy, the federal government has continued to bail out this wasting asset. In private industry, if a business can't at least break-even, it eventually fails. The Postal Services has too long relied on increased postal rates when the cost bears no relationship to the quality of the service provided. The same scenario is equally applicable to public transportation in major cities where service continues to be limited and declining while fares increase even as the price of gasoline has consistently risen over the years.

The question then becomes if the government cannot even manage the Postal Service or public transportation, how is it supposed to oversee the healthcare system in the country which is infinitely more complex and expensive and, again, represents one-sixth of the American economy. In short, it is foolhardy to assume it can do so better than private enterprise incentivized properly and regulated in such a manner to enable healthcare services to be allocated without needless bureaucratic intrusion. The answer is not more government involvement but less: fewer mandates, allow insurance companies, medical professionals and institutions and states to compete to find workable solutions that can be applied nationwide after the best ideas and practices emerge.

U.S. Postal Service Is Government Bureaucracy Run Amok

The U.S. Postal Service is the quintessential government bureaucracy that is incapable of meaningful reform or improvement. Even though the volume of mail is declining at an astounding rate due to the internet as well as high costs of postage, the American public is supposed to tolerate substandard service as if it is simply understood and accepted as a fact of life.

The Postal Service has been pricing itself out of the market for years. Given a choice, I suspect most people would gladly select an alternative if one was available for ordinary mail. When such an option presented itself for expedited delivery via Federal Express and its cohorts, the public and the business community bolted, preferring service and accountability to the government-subsidized "public option." Sound eerily familiar?

While the private sector has been forced to keep costs under control to remain competitive, the compensation and benefits awarded to postal workers and other federal employees are out of whack. Instead of previously being a lesser-paid alternative to the private sector with job security, its pay structure now vastly exceeds equivalent job opportunities in the "real" world.

This attitude of government-tenure jobs with never-ending cost increases is leading not only the postal service but our entire government apparatus to the brink of bankruptcy. It's about time government workers were held to the same standards, compensation and benefits as everyone else. Just think of what that would do to the budget deficit.