 "Photo: N/A")
With apologies to the wonderful professors in the economic department, the most important and valuable economic lesson I ever received was from my parents at some point in my early childhood.
They taught me that "stuff," the things I wanted like Legos and Batman action figures, costs something.
Before you call Child Protective Services and file a retroactive claim for abuse, let me assure you I had plenty of toys, and I certainly didn’t buy them all myself.
My parents didn’t bend to every demand for the latest and greatest must-have item.
If there was something I really wanted, I could buy it or wait until Christmas or my birthday.
Since I never had an allowance or received payment for grades or athletic achievement, money was relatively hard to come by.
It was pure agony having to decide between buying an alternate suit Green Lantern instead of Nighthawk Batman, or eschewing both to save for the aquatic ultra-dome-mega-base Lego set.
Though painful at the time, I have come to appreciate that valuable lesson.
The idea we can get something for nothing is a popular one in American politics.
Politicians promise they can significantly increase both the quantity and quality of government services and somehow manage to simultaneously cut taxes.
It takes five seconds to see what’s wrong with that picture, and yet instead of demand our politicians adopt policy positions that have even a tenuous connection to reality, the vast majority of the voting public embraces this ridiculousness.
We allow ourselves to buy into inflated, unreasonable expectations, then act shocked and outraged when our latest political savior fails to bring utopia to fruition.
Here is the stone cold truth: If you want something, you have to pay for it.
Costs can be hidden, diverted, postponed or passed off, but eventually someone, somewhere, has to pay. The Federal Reserve can print as much money as it wants to, but that does not create a single penny’s worth of actual value. It doesn’t get any bridges built, roads paved or teachers hired.
America needs a reality check. We need to have a national discussion about what we want our government to do for us, about how much government we actually want and how much that costs.
There is a severe disconnect between the amount of services we want the government to provide and the amount of services we seem willing to pay for.
Many Americans, including myself, argue that a smaller government is generally preferable.
Yet, those same people turn around and complain when their favorite programs are put on the chopping block.
People on the other side of the spectrum argue that government is a force for good, and its role should be expanded – but never ask for anyone (beside perhaps some small portion of the wealthy) to shoulder the burden of that expansion.
This column is not a call for less or more government or higher or lower tax rates – it is a plea for sanity. A cry in the wilderness for some truth in politics.
The road we travel is one paved with half truths and false promises. It’s one that fuzzy math, cheap accounting tricks and wildly optimistic estimates give politicians cover to continue with business as usual.
In lieu of cutting services or raising taxes, a generation of politicians (in both parties) have decided that it’s better to let their children and grandchildren bear the brunt of the cost for policies and decisions made today.
The unfunded liability for federal government entitlements (essentially future promises to pay retiree’s Social Security benefits and Medicare costs) is a staggering figure that reaches nearly $45 trillion, and that’s before we add the gargantuan number Americans owe in the form of the mundane, regular national debt.
We cannot push costs of that magnitude into the future forever.
At some point, we will be forced to confront the mismatch between what we want and what we can afford. The longer we wait, the more difficult that day will become, especially for the people my age who will bear the burden most heavily.
I am putting out a clarion call for action now. Let the Republicans call for major cuts in government programs, reduced entitlement benefits and general fiscal responsibility.
A plan doing just that has been introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) but has only nine co-sponsors.
Let the Democrats counter with increased government services, a larger public safety-net and the associated tax increases that are required to adequately support them. I may prefer one plan to the other, but I’ll settle for either at this point. The honesty would be refreshing – so would knowing that the prospect of facing catastrophe when I reach middle age will have been averted.
2 comments