Reining in Government Spending? Let's Get Real

By Larry Elder
Behind the refusal of the House Republican Party's so-called freedom caucus to vote for Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is the caucus's skepticism that he will actually "rein in government spending." I've never quite understood why all Republicans do not belong to the Freedom Caucus. If the Republican Party supports low taxes, light regulations and strong national security, why is a Freedom Caucus even necessary?
Here's the problem. In 1900, government at all three levels -- local, state and federal -- taxed Americans at about 9% of their earnings. Now, it is over 32%. As former President Ronald Reagan said: "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
The federal budget devotes about half of its spending to the so-called entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare. Next is income security, which includes general retirement and disability insurance; federal employee retirement, disability and military retirement; unemployment compensation; housing assistance; nutrition assistance; foster care; Supplemental Security Income; and the earned income and child tax credits. They are followed, in decreasing order, by national security and interest on the debt. Combined, these programs consume almost all federal spending -- courtesy of dollars collected from taxpayers or through borrowing that ultimately must be paid back by taxpayers or through printing. This leaves a small percentage of the federal budget for so-called discretionary spending.
As to the "entitlement" portion, even Democrats over the years called the spending "unsustainable."
Former President Barack Obama once called these programs unsustainable. In March 2013, "Politico" wrote, "(Obama) also warned that Democrats need to embrace at least some changes to unsustainable entitlement programs in order to achieve their long-term priorities."
Former President Bill Clinton, in his January 1996 State of the Union speech, said: "We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means. The era of big government is over."
About Clinton's speech, Paul Light, New York University professor of public service, later wrote: "Clinton would have been much more accurate to say that the era of big government was continuing pretty much unabated. And that is precisely what the vast majority of Americans want." Exactly. Most voters don't much care about the national debt, budget deficits or whether the federal budget is balanced.
Politicians, at least those who want to win elections, practically engage in a suicide mission by criticizing these programs and spooking voters, especially seniors, who are beneficiaries or soon-to-be beneficiaries. President George W. Bush suggested allowing workers to direct a part of their Social Security contribution into an investment account to seek a better rate of return. Bush established a bipartisan commission on Social Security. Its report read: "Social Security will be strengthened if modernized to include a system of voluntary personal accounts. Personal accounts improve retirement security by facilitating wealth creation and providing participants with assets that they own and that can be inherited, rather than providing only claims to benefits that remain subject to political negotiation."
In the 2005 State of the Union Address, Bush said even Democrats warned about the precarious condition of Social Security: "During the 1990s, my predecessor, President (Bill) Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former (Democratic) Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late (Democratic) Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated."
But Democrats denounced Bush's attempt to "privatize Social Security." Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., could barely restrain her glee over Bush's dangerous act of political heresy. Asked about when Democrats would offer their own plan, Pelosi said to one congressional member, "Never. Is never good enough for you?" After pressuring Bush to retreat from his plan by arguing it amounted to a cut, Pelosi called his failed attempt a political "gift."
The adage about tax hikes is equally true about budget cuts: "Don't cut me. Don't cut thee. Cut that fellow behind the tree."
Behind the refusal of the House Republican Party's so-called freedom caucus to vote for Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is the caucus's skepticism that he will actually "rein in government spending." I've never quite understood why all Republicans do not belong to the Freedom Caucus. If the Republican Party supports low taxes, light regulations and strong national security, why is a Freedom Caucus even necessary?
Here's the problem. In 1900, government at all three levels -- local, state and federal -- taxed Americans at about 9% of their earnings. Now, it is over 32%. As former President Ronald Reagan said: "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
The federal budget devotes about half of its spending to the so-called entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare. Next is income security, which includes general retirement and disability insurance; federal employee retirement, disability and military retirement; unemployment compensation; housing assistance; nutrition assistance; foster care; Supplemental Security Income; and the earned income and child tax credits. They are followed, in decreasing order, by national security and interest on the debt. Combined, these programs consume almost all federal spending -- courtesy of dollars collected from taxpayers or through borrowing that ultimately must be paid back by taxpayers or through printing. This leaves a small percentage of the federal budget for so-called discretionary spending.
As to the "entitlement" portion, even Democrats over the years called the spending "unsustainable."
Former President Barack Obama once called these programs unsustainable. In March 2013, "Politico" wrote, "(Obama) also warned that Democrats need to embrace at least some changes to unsustainable entitlement programs in order to achieve their long-term priorities."
Former President Bill Clinton, in his January 1996 State of the Union speech, said: "We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there's not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means. The era of big government is over."
About Clinton's speech, Paul Light, New York University professor of public service, later wrote: "Clinton would have been much more accurate to say that the era of big government was continuing pretty much unabated. And that is precisely what the vast majority of Americans want." Exactly. Most voters don't much care about the national debt, budget deficits or whether the federal budget is balanced.
Politicians, at least those who want to win elections, practically engage in a suicide mission by criticizing these programs and spooking voters, especially seniors, who are beneficiaries or soon-to-be beneficiaries. President George W. Bush suggested allowing workers to direct a part of their Social Security contribution into an investment account to seek a better rate of return. Bush established a bipartisan commission on Social Security. Its report read: "Social Security will be strengthened if modernized to include a system of voluntary personal accounts. Personal accounts improve retirement security by facilitating wealth creation and providing participants with assets that they own and that can be inherited, rather than providing only claims to benefits that remain subject to political negotiation."
In the 2005 State of the Union Address, Bush said even Democrats warned about the precarious condition of Social Security: "During the 1990s, my predecessor, President (Bill) Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former (Democratic) Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late (Democratic) Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated."
But Democrats denounced Bush's attempt to "privatize Social Security." Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., could barely restrain her glee over Bush's dangerous act of political heresy. Asked about when Democrats would offer their own plan, Pelosi said to one congressional member, "Never. Is never good enough for you?" After pressuring Bush to retreat from his plan by arguing it amounted to a cut, Pelosi called his failed attempt a political "gift."
The adage about tax hikes is equally true about budget cuts: "Don't cut me. Don't cut thee. Cut that fellow behind the tree."

Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an "Elderado," visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on Twitter @larryelder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2023 LAURENCE A. ELDER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
COPYRIGHT 2023 LAURENCE A. ELDER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
Posted in Opinion
Tagged with Larry Elder, Government spending, money, federal budget, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, entitlement, Democrats, inflation, #freedomsjournalmagazine, Freedoms Journal Institute
Tagged with Larry Elder, Government spending, money, federal budget, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, entitlement, Democrats, inflation, #freedomsjournalmagazine, Freedoms Journal Institute
Recent
Archive
2023
January
Dead People: Doubts About Reparations from a Proud MuttCartoon 12/30/22Cartoon 12/31/22Cartoon 01/01/23NBA Versus FreedomThe Death of Eternal Truths and the New PaganismCartoon 01/04/23Random New Year's ThoughtsCartoon 01/05/23Cartoon 01/06/23Cartoon 01/08/23COVID: Who Was Right?Cartoon 01/11/22Cartoon 01/09/23Cartoon 01/10/23Our Blundering, Intrusive GovernmentReining in Government Spending? Let's Get RealCartoon 01/12/23He had a DreamCartoon 01/13/23Cartoon 01/15/23Cartoon 01/17/23The Recycling ReligionRacial Reparations Solve NothingCartoon 01/18/23Black Man Dies Following His Arrest -- Examine the Media CoverageCartoon 01/19/23Cartoon 01/20/23Cartoon 01/22/23Cartoon 01/23/23Cartoon 01/24/23Cartoon 01/25/23Population PanicCartoon 01/26/23Obama Warns About the 'Raw Sewage' of Disinformation -- Ignores Democrats' Own GarbageWhite Privilege or Black Fathers - Part 1Cartoon 01/27/23Who's More Irrational -- The Religious or the Irreligious?Freedom’s Journal Institute is Preserving and Proclaiming Black Conservative ValuesCartoon 01/29/23Cartoon 01/30/23
2022
January
Cartoon 01/03/22Cartoon 01/04/22Can Peace Come to the Hood?Moving ForwardThe Democrats' Exploitation of January 6 Gives Away Their GameCartoon 01/05/22Harry Reid, Death of a 'Statesman'? Cue the LaughterCartoon 01/06/22The Biggest Drug Dealers in the Black Community.Cartoon 01/07/22Manhattan's New DA Is Protecting Criminals Instead of Their VictimsLucy(ed) Again?Cartoon 01/10/22“Voter rights legislation” is a demand for government-backed systemic voter disenfranchisement!The perversion of JusticeCartoon 01/11/22The Freedom to Cheat Act: The Radical Left’s Latest Attempt to Undermine Our DemocracyMoney for IndoctrinationThe Great Re-Sorting Is HereCartoon 01/12/22Big Tech Thugs and Their AlliesCartoon 01/13/22Cartoon 01/14/22Cartoon 01/16/22The King is DeadCartoon 01/17/22Biden's Racist IronyThe Glory of God in the CosmosCartoon 01/18/22Evil FloridaThe Quest to Destroy WorkCartoon 01/19/21MLK Day: Equal Rights Versus Equal ResultsCartoon 01/20/22Cartoon 01/21/22Cartoon 01/23/22Cartoon 01/24/22Sick CityThe COVID-19 Impact of Expressive IndividualismCartoon 01/26/22Biden's Election HypocrisyCartoon 01/27/22Conservatives, If You Are Going to Talk to the Black Community, You Need to Have Something Truly Conservative to SayNo, Requiring Voter ID Is Not ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ And It’s Offensive To Say ThatCartoon 01/28/22Cartoon 01/30/22
No Comments