This Year's Lesson






This Year’s Lesson: Don’t Expect Government To Protect You From Yourself

It’s been a great few months for those of us who place value on individual responsibility and accountability, and yearn for a society in which government plays a lesser role in people’s lives. It’s been a time for new political stars to shine, for old welfare-mentality ideas to be challenged and for a new era of personal responsibility to begin.

As predicted last winter, the reduction in anticipated state tax collections put elected officials on the hot seat and forced them to make tougher decisions than they otherwise would or could have made. Had not the economy nose-dived and expected revenues come up short, it would have been politically impossible to marshal support for tougher budget measures. The plain fact is, when the economy was booming and the tax gravy train was rolling in the late ‘90s, Republicans were almost as guilty as Democrats when it came to spending the windfall. Sure, a few more tax rebate checks were sent out, but for the most part, for the better part of the last 20 years, both Republicans and Democrats have participated in allowing public-sector spending to rise by more twice the rate of inflation.

Enter the Tech Crash of ’01, which brought about unprecedented wariness with the stock market, increased investor reluctance, reduced consumer spending, manufacturing reductions and diminished output – all of which combined to limit corporate investment, raise unemployment levels, cut into income and reduce anticipated tax collections.

In the Chinese language, “crisis” and “opportunity” share the same word. Not so in English, where we are taught that a “crisis” is something to be feared and avoided. I wish it were the opposite. I wish we could adopt the viewpoint that a “crisis” is really an opportunity to make improvements to the status quo. If that were the case, this spring’s budget debate could have been much more enlightening, and not nearly as divisive.

I’m probably deluding myself. However you cut it, there’s a profound difference between the diametrically opposing viewpoints of Big Government vs. Little Government, between Big Government’s goal of watching out for you, versus Little Government’s goal of having you watch out for yourself. Some people have never met a government program they didn’t like, and they’ve never met someone wealthier than themselves who they did not want to tax down to their level.

All that’s needed to make a profound change in the world is one person with a vision and a willingness to risk everything. Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest presidents of the 20th century, not because of tremendous intellect or an unsurpassed work ethic (he had neither), but because he had a clear understanding of what made America great. Reagan envisioned our nation as a “shining city on a hill” leading the world toward a brighter future. He wasn’t a workaholic; he didn’t have to be. He surrounded himself with sharp people, he precisely articulated his view of the role that government should play in our lives, and he worked hard to implement his vision. Contrast that to Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, two of our brightest presidents, who were lacking a philosophical compass and didn’t have the foggiest idea what they wanted to accomplish once they were elected.

Such a visionary, articulate leader took the helm of state government in Minnesota in January, and had it not been for his leadership, the “opportunity” to hold down taxes and spending likely would have been squandered. Governor Tim Pawlenty distinguished himself in a big way, and has earned himself a prominent place in the national Republican spotlight. Unlike the first President Bush, when Pawlenty said “no new taxes,” he meant it. His unwillingness to capitulate to the Spending Lobby provoked shrieks of outrage from those used to double-digit growth -- and quiet thanks from the silent majority of taxpayers who have spent the last several decades financing the generosity of liberals, who love giving away other people’s money.

From the outset, Pawlenty made it clear that taxes were not going to be raised. Period. Under his watch, state government was going to do what you and I do when our checkbook is running dry: hold back on spending. It seems so simple, so common sense. When you make less, spend less.

But oh, did the howls go up. Judging by the screams of pain and agony from the Spending Lobby, you’d think that holding growth in state spending to 4 percent over the next two years (increasing spending by “only” $1.4 billion) was going to destroy the state’s infrastructure, that the elderly and infirm were going to be thrown into the streets, that schools would close and nursing homes would be boarded up. All we heard for five months was how programs were being “cut” because the Evil Conservative Governor insisted on fulfilling his campaign pledge. Such blather. Any way you “cut” it, state spending is going up next year -- just not going up as much as the Spending Lobby would like, not as much as they’ve become used to.

Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say you have worked for the same company for the past 20 years, and every year your boss has given you a 10 percent raise. But one year, the company struggled. The economy went south, sales fell into the toilet and profits dried up. So your boss called you into his office and explained to you that, sorry, he can only afford to give you a 5 percent raise this year. Would you scream and shout that your income was being “cut,” or would you be appreciative that you still had a job (and a small raise to boot)?

State government is like the 400-pounder whose been grazing at the breakfast buffet nonstop for the past 20 years, and is being told that they’ll have to begin ordering off the menu and paying for each entrée.

One of the great many positives to emerge from this spring’s state budget debates has been a stimulating discussion over the proper role of government, and whether taxpayers should be forced to “bail out” individuals who have made poor decisions in life. The issue of personal responsibility brings to a head the defining difference between Hard-Hearted Republicans (HHRs) and Compassionate Democrats (CDs), and is a debate that needs to continue in the years ahead.

The ace-up-the-sleeve of CDs in the budget debate has always been sob stories about how this person or that person will be “hurt” (or, better yet, “left behind) if state spending on a given program isn’t funded to the max. What follows is usually a classic “what-not-to-do” case study, brought on by immaturity, intransigence and unbelievably poor decision-making.

You’ve heard the stories.

Are we really supposed to feel sorry for Sally, the 19-year-old high school dropout, a single mother of two preschoolers, who works the midnight to 8 a.m. shift at the Texaco station, who complains that without her sliding fee subsidized daycare, she won’t be able to keep her going-nowhere-fast job? She didn’t have to get pregnant. She didn’t have to go through with the pregnancies, or keep the children; chances are, her children would have been better off if they had been put up for adoption and brought up in a better environment. And she certainly didn’t have to quit school, or not seek employment training. But Sally and her “supporters” have no qualms about having taxpayers -- who didn’t make her poor lifestyle choices, who went to school, who paid the price for success – bail Sally out of her poor decisions.

Are we really supposed to feel sorry for Jimmy, the 25-year-old drug addict who burglarized a dozen hardware stores before being locked away for five years -- at a cost of $30,000 a year to taxpayers -- who might have to share a cell with another inmate because of prison overcrowding? Compare jails and prisons in America to others around the world, and you’ll find that our prisoners are fed better, housed better and treated more humanely than most others. If I were running the penal system, I’d keep them so busy earning their keep that they’d be too tired at the end of the day to complain about anything or cause any problems.

Are we really supposed to feel sorry that state employees may have to forgo pay raises for the next year or two? Their counterparts in the airlines industry are losing their jobs by the thousands; many would be willing to accept a pay cut if it meant holding onto their jobs. But public employees want to have their bread (and their cake) and eat it too: they want their jobs, they want their pay raises and they want their departments (or schools, or hospitals, or libraries) fully funded. By whom? The same taxpayers whose private-sector jobs are imperiled and pay being cut. Amazing.

What we need is for people to take responsibility for themselves and stop looking to others (government included) for bailouts. When that day happens (as if it ever will!), the days of Big Government will be over.


Previous Articles

Determine Your Beliefs
Personal Experience
Half a Loaf
Compromising on Strong Opinions
Economics
Short Shots
The Budget Season

---

About the Author;
Vic Ellison, Apple Valley, Minnesota, is the father of three and the grandfather of two, and has been married for 25 years. Vic is an independent businessman with extensive backgrounds in politics and writing. He can be reached at Vic@boomerjournals.com