The New York Times editorial that Jonathan referenced this morning is really quite an amazing document, a window into the utter policy bankruptcy of modern-day liberalism. It’s a classic example of the somebody-somewhere argument. Any change in entitlements or federal government largesse to states and cities, this argument holds, will mean that somebody somewhere will be hurt by the change and that therefore everything must stay the same, even though the world has not stayed the same.
To give just one example, the Times writes, “Mr. Ryan plans to take away their new sewage treatment plant, the asphalt for their streets, and the replacements for retiring police officers and firefighters.” Why any of that is a federal responsibility I know not, but anyway, do we need as many, say, firemen as we have had in the past? The number of house fires has fallen by half during the last 35 years, thanks to better building codes, smoke alarms, the decline of smoking, etc. Firemen these days spend much of their time responding not to fires but to accidents and medical emergencies to which the police and EMS also respond. That’s make-work. Firemen are heroes, for sure, but fire departments are not WPA projects. They exist to fight fires, not employ firemen. Budgetary discipline forces governments to look for ways to do the job at lower cost. Is there any fat in government? Is there any water in the Pacific Ocean? The federal government has 47 different job-training programs run by 9 different agencies. But the New York Times and the choir to which it preaches want none of it changed.
The blind defense of the status quo that so characterizes the left these days (and, indeed, has since Lyndon Johnson left the White House more than 40 years ago) has led us to the edge of a fiscal crisis of almost unimaginable proportions. Our main entitlement programs, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, are all operating in deficit, and those deficits will only get worse as the baby boomers retire and live substantially longer than their parents did, requiring more Medicare and more Social Security. The national debt is higher than it has been, relative to GDP, since the end of World War II. We have already lost our AAA credit rating and there are ever-mounting deficits as far as the eye can see under Obama’s proposed budget (unanimously rejected by Congress).
The people seem to understand that we need to change our fiscal ways to avoid disaster and have rewarded those who have advocated it and brought it about (see the 2010 congressional elections, the Scott Walker recall election, the popularity of Mitch Daniels in Indiana, Chris Christie in deep-blue New Jersey, etc.).
Paul Ryan has produced a plan to change our fiscal course. It balances cuts in federal spending with reforms that will mitigate the pain of these reforms. It take spending only back to what it was in 2008, not 1928, as the Times essentially argues. Mitt Romney chose the author of the plan and the leading Republican voice for budgetary matters as his running mate. Thus the Republican Party is now, inescapably, the party of budgetary and entitlement reform. It will win or lose on that issue November 6.
What is the liberal plan to address the impending crisis? Well, there isn’t one. When George Bush put forth a plan to reform Social Security in 2005, the Democratic alternative consisted, in its entirety, of the word “No!” They managed to block it. Social Security was still running surpluses in 2005. It is not now.
The liberal alternative to the Ryan reform plan, to the extent that there is one, is to demagogue all reform proposals, kick the can down the road and hope, like Dickens’s classic deficit financier, Wilkins Micawber, that something will turn up.
It won’t, and the sooner we begin what will be, to be sure, a painful process, the less painful it will be. Perhaps it’s wishful thinking on my part, but I think the people are way ahead of the chattering classes on this.
Surely you can't be surprised by the editorial of The Paper of Record. And they *must* defend the status quo, because they created it (with assistance from Democrat Lite Republicans), saying to our fellow citizens, "There, but for the grace of God and the Democratic Party, would go you to the poor house, grave, etc., if you foolishly relied on Republicans to take care of you." The only real question about this (and subsequent) elections is if we have the stomach for walking back entitlements, permanently, to a fiscally sustainable level that permits us to "provide for the common defense" and other responsibilities that only the federal government can fulfill. Easily the most interesting and important election in my (62 years) lifetime.
nYeah, I think all of those things are a local issues and I don't understand how the left thinks it's the feds job to finance the states. n
nThe Democrats don't have an actual plan other that to blame Bush for all of our problems.
Why do you suppose Walker called off the dogs on Police and Fire? You would not have Scott Walker sitting pretty now, if he hadn't realized that Police and Fire occupy very respected and nearly unshakeable ground. n nFiremen in numbers that seem excessive are tolerated because in a fire emergency -which can still occur despite tech aids -time, training and numbers are of the essence. n nWhat Obama is attempting, and perhaps has even succeeded in doing, is making Romney into an untouchable man, that is, a man so removed from the day to day existence of the American people that one thinks of him as the affluent man on the street who looks right through you. n nRyan can help, perhaps, fire back at Obama and his henchmen but Romney is already stating that it's his budget that he'll be putting forth. These next couple of weeks are Romney's last chance to extend his hand to the American people, asking them to trust him and grab hold of it. In fine, not looking through them. n nSome firemen made their last confessions before going into an inferno on 9/11. You forgot to mention that in your piece, so I thought I'd mention it along with a prayer that they rest in peace. n nWe've been working on becoming a commensal nation since the Civil War. Understanding the psychology of that, the fear of economic collapse predating Obama, the knowledge of the suffering and displacement that creative destruction can cause, understanding all of these are essential to being able to "turn this thing around."
ok-let's keep those firemen. How about the many teachers? How about the pensions of the firemen? how about the proliferation of bureaucrats? and how about the thousands of soldiers who will lose their livelihood with the cuts by Obama- why are firemen more important than soldiers?
The pensions can be dealt with honestly through negotiations. Cops and Firemen are not morons. But you should probably put that question to Scott Walker. n nI don't think Firemen are more important than Soldiers. n nThe Teacher's Union is a racket, if you can break its back, more power to you. But we do need an educated workforce and that can be done at the State level but if uniformity is important then there's probably some need for Federal involvement. n nThe proliferation of bureaucrats can be controlled only through honest administration of State, County and Municipal government.