Stop Bickering; Start Cutting!

According to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com and http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/, America will spend nearly 35% more than it makes each year.  That's right: the Federal Government currently takes in about $2.2 trillion in revenue each year.  But it will spend a little over $3.8 trillion this year.

As politicians in Washington finger point, quickly casting blame without proposing solutions, the situation doesn't get any better. Of course, a large part of the problem is the ongoing recession.  Revenues are typically lower in revenues (less tax revenue from less productive individuals, businesses, and property), and government outlays increase proportionally (more welfare for the unemployed, underemployed, and underinsured).  But even conservative estimates predict $600 billion federal deficits in the coming few years.  And those estimates assume a recovering economy and cessation of the Bush tax cuts.  These deficits are not without consequence.  The Congressional Budget Office has suggested the total federal debt taking up more than 75% of the GDP with the most favorable (and least likely) estimates.  More realistic estimates predict a spiraling insane percentages nearing 200% of the total GDP.



What is this deficit made up of?  The top three takers are Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Military Defense.  These three take a chunk of about $800 billion a year, and are followed by nearly $500 billion total of welfare payments.  These four take up nearly $3 Trillion, more than current revenues, but around predicted future revenues (with an improving economy and increased taxes).

What is the answer to this deficit?

Well, if it was an individual, the answer would be very simple:  Stop Spending.  And, start cutting.  But, Washington politicians are skittish about touching anything.  It took the Republicans a double take to cut military...bands.  And Congress can't agree to cut farm subsidies .  Meanwhile, ineffective programs like the Department of Agriculture are bleeding away funds.

Partisan politics are enough.

Average Americans are having to learn to cut back.  If their income dropped, they would cut back.  No person could sustain spending 135% the rate of their spending.  They would constantly increase their debt, never save, and dig a deeper hole.  People have to make tough choices and cut back their spending.  Sometimes it hurts.  And when you are so far overbudget, it WILL hurt.  America must do the same.

So, why doesn't Washington just slash everything?  Of course, it's impracticable because of the difference between 'essential' and 'non-essential' programs.  Eventually, though, everything becomes 'essential' and no one refuses to cut.  It's enough.  Just take a fixed percentage cut of every program--essential or not--(say 10%), and then deeper cuts of even more nonessential programs (say the Department of Agriculture).

Of course it will hurt.  Conservatives will complain about cutting the defense budget.  Sure, maybe we won't be able to afford as many F-22's or high-tech weaponry.  But, if say for a few trillion dollars we don't have, we could create incredibly advanced weaponry, does that give us a right to field equipment that we cannot afford?  It's money we don't have.  Just because the Defense Dept has operated as a higher budget doesn't mean it deserves those programs, nor can we afford them.  We can't.  Yes, it will hurt capability.  But that's what happens when you can't afford things.

Liberals will complain about "seniors" and "unemployed", but increasing unemployment benefits has never helped the problem.  Instead the problem is just delayed until the new 99-week plan, or whatever new program, runs out.  The people are still unemployed.  And 'entitlements' pay nearly 3x in benefits for Medicare than what is contributed by the workers.  There is no 'entitlement' to such gross gains in investment--especially when America is in such a difficult position.

Yes, it's difficult.  Yes, it's drastic. But we have a drastic problem.

No one likes tighterning their belt--but if everyone has to tighten their belt, and watch their neighbor also having to cut back, it's a lot harder to cry foul.  Everyone must suffer a little bit for the greater, and longer term good.

We don't have the money, and just because we made poor decisions in the past doesn't mean we "owe" it to people--we  didn't have the money and never will.  Cut these programs across the board.  These cuts may need to be delayed a little--a gradual phaseout of 10%, for example--but it should be a cut nonetheless.  A cut.  Not a little scar.  It's a cut.  That's the cut that the deficit and national debt are putting into our US name and economy.  That's the cut that we have to make to get out of this.

Courageous Conservatism: A Weekend at AEI

The Greek historian Plutarch famously wrote that "Courage consists not in hazarding without fear, but being resolutely minded in a just cause."  Today in Washington, The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) leads with such fortitude as they courageously defend the moral nature of America’s free enterprise system.  Perched on the top floors of a DC high-rise, some of Washington's greatest thinkers combine extensive research and practical experience in support of these economic principles.

Last weekend at an AEI conference, I had the opportunity to join some 60 students and faculty from Christian colleges nationwide.  I knew only a little about AEI’s mission, and the conference’s title of ‘Purpose and Prosperity’ offered just a glimpse into our three days. 

What I discovered was AEI’s high degree of scholarship and competency.  Their speakers, often with Capitol Hill experience, were extremely proficient in their field.  They echoed a common chorus: conservatives need new moral arguments to defend timeless economic principles.  This theme resonated with me.  The current representative of conservatism —the Republican Party—often offers unmoving rationale for good ideas.

AEI’s President, Arthur Brooks, insisted on a moral argument for free market enterprise.  Nowadays, liberals claim fairness through a social democracy that takes from the wealthy to subsidize the poor.  However, it is capitalism’s merit-based system that offers true fairness by rewarding hard work.  In fact, this system promotes earned success, which provides far greater happiness than government handouts.

Pete Wehner expanded on capitalism’s morality.  While he freely admitted the free market’s flaws, he argued that it is the most successful working economic system.  In fact, capitalism has often bettered our moral condition by encouraging thrift and penalizing lawlessness.  I had never considered these arguments.  But as I thought about these claims, I realized that America was built on the hard work of millions.  Of course inequality is a problem, but the liberal alternative of penalizing personal success is no solution.

This conference resonated with me because it dealt with the compelling issues of my generation.  In fact, Andrew Briggs discussion of Social Security was popular because it addressed a genuine crisis.  National debt has risen and entitlement programs like Social Security continue to add to this problem.  Briggs clearly exposed a program that does not invest, but transfers payments from one generation to another.  He proposed raising the retirement age and disincentivizing retirement to balance the program.  This solution wouldn’t be popular, but it embodies Pleutarch’s concept of courage.

Back in my California, conservative views are understandably unpopular.  But now that I understand how much these issues matter and how well they can be defended, I’m inspired to become more active in politics.  Political unpopularity shouldn’t quell true courage.  Before his death at the hand of a mob, Socrates uttered words that should guide me in upholding principle in a liberal climate: “We should not think so much of what the majority will say about us, but what He will say who understands justice and injustice.”

Egypt: The Unhappy Reality that Awaits

Revolution.

That word fires up the mind and hearts of every American. When we hear revolution, we recall general ideals of liberty and independence. We think of Paul Revere and George Washington, of Redcoats and Minutemen.

In fact, the American revolution gave hope to millions. A string of European revolts would dominate the next half century, especially during the pivotal year of 1848. Later uprisings in Latin America under Simon Bolívar would look to the American revolution as a model, and the American republic as their ideal.

Today, we're watching Egypt crusade for liberty, confident of its ability to emulate the American Revolution.

But, what was it about the American revolution that was so inspiring? Revolution itself has occurred from the beginning of civilization...

1. Military Success--The American colonies defeated the top military and economic superpower of their day. Farmers in militias had defeated a Goliath. Other nations, then, had hope that they too could overpower their rulers: No oppressor was too strong to take down.
2. Governmental Success--Successful defeats of great nations have occurred throughout history. For example, the Greeks famously crippled the Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae. Yet infighting spread between the Athenians and Spartans, eventually weakening the Greek city-states enough for Phillip of Macedonia to overwhelm the mainland. Thirteen American colonies could have followed this same path. Instead, their founding values, wise leaders, and common heritage allowed them to draft the Constitution. The completed work is obvious to all: America has long been the symbol, and now the leader of freedom.

The problem for other revolutionaries

Unfortunately, many freedom fighters took the revolution part without retaining the governingpart of America's success. They falsely assumed that their current oppressor was their biggest threat. In response to such views, outgoing President Andrew Jackson admonished the American people that "eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." Too many revolutionaries gloried in their victory without looking to the permanent securing of their ideals. They would not pay the price of difficult compromises to achieve a steady government. They refused to be alert to demagogues who cloaked tyranny in people-pleasing.

Egypt is heading down this same road. Why? Its people have been oppressed for years, but are now content to merely have the choice of what the want. Their goal is to vote, not directly for true freedom. Media interviews with opposition leaders and protesters have shown a disturbing trend. Potential voters worry less about who their new ruler(s) will be, then that they will finally have a choice. Anything, it seems, will surpass the quality of their current "President." These seemingly unexpected protests are starting to make revolution the end, and not the means to a government vigilant in the defense of freedom to be the end, not the means. Protesters may overthrow Mubarak but gain a worse oppressor.

Egypt follows path of French, not American Revolution

Egypt parallels the French Revolution far more than it parallels the American. The French thought they could replicate the Americans, but they failed miserably. Why? Because they lacked the prerequisites to replace what they had destroyed. Egypt is on this same route.

Their "Roots"

America: The American colonies were mostly settled by Englishmen, with minorities from other impoverished European groups. The Anglo colonists brought with them the long tradition of English law and rights. Fundamentally, the Revolution can be traced down these roots to theMagna Carta. In this document, England established the basics of due process (every man must be fairly judged by his peers, before his life, privileges or property may be taken), and that every man is accountable to the law (even the king). Nearly 400 years later, the Parliament of early 1700s Britain exemplified the basics of representation: Authority was in the hands of the people. When Englishmen then settled in America, they brought with them these vital beliefs of natural rights, just laws, and representation. Early settlers created the pivotal Mayflower Compact, which bound treasure hunters, refugees, and other colonists to government. Here was the idea offreedom. Men gave up some liberties for the greater good of each other, and ultimately themselves, by gaining a secure government.

France: France had no great history of personal rights or representative government. Hierarchy dominated every area of French society for hundreds of years. Tribal authorities transformed into a system of feudalism. Kings, lodged in their voluptuous Versailles palaces, ruled the nation. While the English continually moved towards more individual rights, France slid towards autocracy. Further, the Catholic Church had an enormous hold on the French people. Not only was there such a socioeconomic divide between peasantry and nobility, but there was also a gap between the clergy and lay peoples. The priests held the First Estate in French culture. Comparatively, the English's Protestant roots and independent Anglican Church produced values of individuality, not oppression. Of course, the French had the Enlightenment, which had formed some of the very ideas that the American Revolution drew from. Still, for the most part, the French were pulling from new and unfamiliar ideas, rather than the rich English history of the Americans.

Egypt: Thousands of years ago, of course, the Egyptians were a nation of Pharoah's and monarchical succession. More recently--in the 600s, Islamic armies swept through the Middle East and North Africa to establish Muslim rule Egypt. Islam and the Egyptian government have been largely tied together throughout its history. A caliphate government first ruled. Religious leaders succeeded each other, retaining both constancy and autocracy. The hierarchy of sultans and caliphates gradually changed to military castes in later years. For the past two hundred years, Egypt has been under various religious/military rulers. Even when the British ruled, the Egyptian army resisted mightily. And the last three rulers of Egypt--Nassar, Sadat, and Mubarak--were all autocrats to one degree or another. What does this mean? There is no tradition of personal rights, no religion to promote such freedom, nor any trend of representative government. The average person has, historically, never had a significant voice. Therefore, there is an increased chance that once Mubarak's dictatorship is lifted, licence and not freedom will reign. What's the difference? Socrates aptly expands in the Republic: "And isn't the city full of freedom and freedom of speech? And isn't there license to do whatever one wants?...And where there is license, each person would arrange his own life in whatever way pleases him..." and later "in the end...they take no notice of the laws--written or unwritten--in order to have no master at all." Later, Socrates emphasizes that such licentiousness opens the door to a tyrant. He can please the many desires of the people, and then through corruption and increasing evils play upon the people to create his tyranny. (Republic, Book IX) Egypt could very well face the same in the days following a successful revolution. Why? They seem content to stop at revolution. They have never even tasted representation, so there's less a chance that they will push on. Just like the French, they are partially doomed by their own history.

Their Revolution

America: As the British pushed ever more restrictive laws on the colonies, the colonists began to turn further and further against their mother nation. Resistance occurred state by state as representatives protested these new laws. Eventually, the struggle turned militaristic and the Americans defeated their forebears. Government still was representative through the relatively ineffective Articles of Confederation. Yet, during the war, the Continental Congress--though weak--made enough decent decisions to keep America afloat throughout the struggle.

France: Unlike the American colonies, who rebelled in a time of general prosperity; the French uprose in a period of economic and agricultural misery. Poverty and famine ran rampant. Still, their revolution paralleled the concept of representatives taking the first steps towards freedom. The Third Estate, representing the lowest and largest class of society (mainly peasants), pushed for reforms of representation. When the king tried to squelch their power, conflict arose and eventually the revolutionaries achieved a new Constitution. Their constitution was as ineffective as the Articles of Confederation, with bickering from all political and economic persuasions. By the end of this revolutionary period, France was in a similar spot as the American colonies. It had overthrown much of its oppressors, but it still had the king in some power, just as the Americans had British forts dotting their landscape. France was left in division among classes; America was left in division among states.

Egypt: Egypt follows the beginnings of the French revolution. Citizens, oppressed for generations, revolt in a time of economic distress. Unemployment is high, commerce is slow, and the latest Egyptian laws have been greeted in protest. Demonstrations began somewhat quietly, pushing slowly for change. But, as the real purpose of the Egyptian demonstrations--eliminating Mubarak's power--failed, the demonstrations have taken a harsher turn. Today, in fact, Egypt is preparing for a demonstration that could be the bloodiest to date in its struggle: protesters are said to be carrying weapons, and tensions with government street thugs have escalated. What will happen next? We don't know, but the fact that Egypt is bucking such tradition and starting down a road like the French is not comforting.

Their Result

America: This is the crucial difference between the American and French revolutions. While the United States faced internal crisis (various rebellions, weak government) and external threats (British forts, French and Spanish borders), they responded deliberately. The best and wisest men were sent to draft up a new Constitution. At the heart of this Constitution were the ideals of the Revolution, BUT some of the ideals were limited for the sake of unity and practicality.Compromise dominated the Convention, as the interests of 13 distinct colonies had to be balanced in some form. Yet, here is freedom, not license. Freedom is restrainment. George Washington, the Revolutionary hero, was offered the position of king. Yet, he restrained himself and limited his powers. This set a promising trend for the rest of America. The opportunity was autocracy was available to Washington. Yet he did not take it. In fact, the radicals who led the revolution were not the men who crafted a government. Why? Because the new government had to be steady and resolved and restrained, not constantly destroyed and reordered.

France: France let itself go for the ideal of liberty. After further clashes with the king, the French, led by the radical Jacobins, took over power. The Jacobins constantly purged threats to their government. Violence and bloodshed plagued the French as regime after regime was eventually usurped. Eventually, a dictator took over--Napoleon Bonaparte. He was the only one who could unite the nation, and took them militarily to some brief success, even as he continued repression. What was the difference between France and America? Alexander Hamilton put it best when he said that the French Revolution was "sullied by crimes and extravagance..." instead of the deliberation that characterized the American revolution. Liberty overtook good structure and order. When nothing stops freedom, it becomes license where evil can reign untouched.

Egypt: Egypt has set its focus on ridding itself of Mubarak. This glimmer of hope for free elections thrills the protesting populace. Their hope is not for good, solid principles of government, but just for the ability to vote. Hamilton realized that the ancient traditions of the French could not be cast aside in a few months by idealists. Rather, it would have had to be deliberate and slow, with an understanding of their traditions and the necessity of sacrifice. Is Egypt going to pursue liberty as its sole end? As it is, the opportunity for a demagogue to take over is easy. It's probable. Will it be through the Muslim Brotherhood? Maybe another dictator like Mubarak? In any case, the Egyptians have set their focus--not on suffering through the difficulties of raising up freedom, but rather to quickly gain liberty and a vote. Their price will likely be a government that is at least as restrictive as the one they have now.

So...what?

The Egyptians do not have history going in their favor. Revolutions in France, Latin America, and other nations have mostly turned out in failure. The long lines of hierarchy and oppressive rule have prevented the ideals and necessities of freedom from being practiced. The Americans had a working knowledge of representation and government to a degree. Egypt, like most other nations who have unsuccessfully attempted a revolt, does not have this pedigree. Moreover, Egypt is contenting itself with an "election" as its end. It is not necessarily pursuing good government.

Do I support the idea of the Egyptians overthrowing an autocratic government? Of course. They should be entitled to those rights of any other person. But I fear that Egypt is unprepared and ignorant of what is awaiting them. They are unwilling to sacrifice for true freedom--ensuring that the government they create and elect is good. Rather, they are headstrong for liberty. Their revolution will be their poison pill.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Next time: Does it really matter if the Egyptians elect an Islamic (and possibly oppressive) government? After all, it's their choice. Right?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question? Comment? Leave it below in the comments section!