President Bush delivered more big government regulations and spending in his first four years than President Clinton did in his eight years in office. The first State of the Union speech of his second terms promises to deliver more of what we saw in his first term.
The high point of his speech was when he pledged to reduce or eliminate spending on more than 150 government programs. Discretionary spending will rise more slowly than inflation, tax cuts will become permanent-taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely or not at all. This indicates a degree of fiscal responsibility yet unseen from Americas’ 43rd president. However, this brief moment of Reaganesque rhetoric near the beginning of his speech was immediately followed by the kind of oratory that one would have expected from a President Kerry. [Full Article]
{ 6 comments }
I’m as dismayed as other capitalists by President Bushes huge spending increases. But at the same time, I realize that a difference exists between between the fields of politics and economics. In politics, half a loaf is better than none and even the most ardent capitalist will have to settle for what he can get because socialism still dominates the thinking of Americans. Economists, on the other hand, are free to maintain their purity of thought without suffering adverse consequences. The situation is similar to that of the pro-life movement. Dedicated pro-lifers can criticize politicians for compromising their convictions and pat themselves on the back for their moral purity, but pro-life politicians have to live in the real world, one in which many people are pro-abortion. So they can’t have everything they want; they must compromise.
I would love to see SS eliminated, but I also know that even most Republicans, not to mention all Democrats, are socialists at heart and would not stand for it. So I’ll settle for any movement in that direction that I can wrench from them. Meanwhile, the real task of liberal economists should be to convince the American people of the evils of socialism and virtues of capitalism so that politicians have to compromise less with the socialists.
Roger, as I noted in the comments here, the problem w/ the SS reform is it is not an unambiguous movement forward. The bottom line is this: Social Security reform will result in a system that is still terrible, like the current one, in that benefits to be received are paltry and not reliable; and the cost will no doubt be an increase in the payroll tax.
In other words, what is being proposed is (a) we will increase your taxes further; and (b) we promise to improve your SS situation in exchange for this.
Of course, (b) is BS; you can’t count on them to do what they promise. Why would I view it is an improvement if my damned taxes are raised yet again?? Why is this an “incremental” move in the right direction? If it is, I suppose a 50% increase in tax and a corresponding “significant” improvement in SS solvency and “benefits” would be a giant leap of progress??
You have phrased this article well, but I find the following statement about Social Security a real example of semantic infiltration: “The real problem is that people receive a plus 2 to minus 2 percent return on their money in Social Security…” Those wanting to “reform” rather than eliminate Social Security refer to returns on their money. In truth SS never returns your money. The government takes your money and you never see it again. Those getting SS payments receive money taken from others. We need to avoid speaking of Social Security returns because they do not exist. (Forced saving does not provide a better alternative; only a more complex set of problems.) The only answer: eliminate Social Security.
“… this brief moment of Reaganesque rhetoric near the beginning of his speech was immediately followed by the kind of oratory that one would have expected from a President Kerry.”
I didn’t hear the recent State of the Union speech, but the above description exactly matches GWB’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention last year. The worst socialistic excesses are smoothed over for the benefit of conservative-leaning Americans, with words such as “ownership” and “choice”. With plenty of lard applied with words such as “patriotism”, “freedom”, etc.
Have Bush or any of his media interpreters ever been challenged to answer these questions?
- When and how will the federal budget be balanced?
- If the federal deficit is to be gradually reduced through greater tax revenues derived from the growth of the overall economy, then how can this growth be achieved when Americans are competing against nations with far lower burdens of taxation and regulation? (even after Bush’s tax cuts)
- If the federal budget is to be balanced by spending cuts, then where will these cuts be made, and when?
- If the war on terror is unlikely to ever be concluded by a treaty or other proclamation of cease fire, then how and when can Americans expect to receive a peace dividend?
Further to Roger D. McKinney’s comments:
“Economists, on the other hand, are free to maintain their purity of thought without suffering adverse consequences.”
Are you kidding? I’m getting screwed on my investments, as taxes and inflation eat away the meagre returns that I get. It is not for reasons of ideological purity that I fight for significant decreases in the burdens of taxation and regulation – it’s a matter of economic survival. I’m not an American but I follow these developments closely because everything that happens in the USA sooner or later affects me in Canada. If the proposed SS reforms are not clearly leading to lower taxes and regulation, then they do not deserve anyone’s support. If the proposals are actually obscuring and hindering progress to lower taxes and regulation, then they should be fought tooth and nail.
I would be very interested if someone wrote a story about tourists in the United States twelve years from now, during George W Bush’s fifth presidential term, after he did away with the term limitation amendment in 2007.
“It is also not at all clear that a better world requires more democracy. The success of democratic government in the US was due to the constitutional limitationsof this government. That is, American Democracy succeeded because of its least democratic elements.”
Say what?!! What success of democratic government? From where I am standing, the U.S. government has been nothing short of an utter disaster.
As for the Constitution, it has done nothing to stop the growth of government, much less ‘limit’ anything. How could the Constitution possibly limit the government when the very government that it is supposed to limit has been charged with the task of interpreting it? This is like me signing a contract with you but reserving the right to interpret it any way I want.
No, the only reason why the U.S. has not turned into Europe is because Americans are more favorable towards private property rights and entrepreneurship. This has to do with the opinions of the American people, not a piece of paper written over 200 years ago. And yet the struggle for free enterprise continues.
Comments on this entry are closed.