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.