Rein in Spending? Let’s Talk Entitlements
Obama’s critics are quick to remind that Socialism is inherently un-American.
The intellectual dishonesty in this notion is that since 1935, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Social Security into law, a significant segment of the American economy has grown to be, well, socialist in nature. Not to be outdone, in the 1960’s, President Johnson and Congress added Medicare and Medicaid to a broader category that has come to be known as “entitlements.”
Entitlements are often described by another “s” word—sacrosanct—meaning that any politician that merely suggests sweeping changes to these programs risks political ruin.
The notable exception was last year’s U.S. Senate race in Florida where Tea Party superstar Marco Rubio joined a growing chorus of voices suggesting that several changes, including a gradual increase in the age to tap benefits to 70 and changing the index formula by which benefits are adjusted.
With economists varying on whether Social Security is heading toward insolvency within the next fifty years, the issue is whether the tax revenue that currently is spent on these major entitlements can be streamlined to cut costs and provide savings?
The answer to this usually boils down to politics. Of late, there are increasing numbers of Independents and Democrats trending toward private accounts that potentially could generate greater revenue and could be devised as they see fit—current SS laws allows spouses and minor children to recover benefits, as well as the decedent’s debt. As such, an individual that has worked his entire life and dies without a spouse but leaves adult children cannot devise his or her hard-earned money as he or she sees fit.
Still, one of the best election years scare tactics is to suggest cuts to entitlements. But if we are to consider John Kennedy’s old challenge that we be prepared to “bear any burden”, then isn’t it time to give serious consideration to such changes?
Defense Cuts
The isolationist in me believes that the notion of being the “World’s Cop”, which was critically necessary during the Cold War as we sought to avoid nuclear annihilation, is outdated. The likelihood of an all out nuclear assault by a major nuclear power has been dramatically reduced due to the technological advances in missile detection and weaponry over the past thirty years.
While I believe that we should continue to fund research and development of the latest weapons systems and equipment to ensure the maximum destruction of our enemies and the maximum safety of our soldiers, it would be wise to reduce spending on our exercises in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are mostly funded through emergency appropriations bills and ordinarily not counted toward the deficit—although it definitely depletes our national coiffeurs. Further, the regularly appropriated defense budget ordinarily comprises nearly 20% of the federal budget—third only to Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.
As many experts have suggested, our defense department needs to focus less on fighting a huge war of attrition against a massive standing foreign armed forces—and become leaner, more agile and capable of addressing hot zones in any area with rapid deployment and maximum use of our technological advantages.
The billions that can be saved with such modernization can be more wisely spent in refurbishing the reserved forces and National Guard units that have born the brunt of multiple deployments over the past eight years. Not to mention an improvement in VA Hospitals, better social and psychological services for veterans, and increased cost of living and education benefits for our soldiers who receive more lip service than tangible appreciation for their sacrifices.
Less Government—Literally
It is no secret that Florida’s millionaire Governor Rick Scott does not take a salary for his services. Still, with his strong advocacy for state hiring freezes, job elimination and benefit cuts, perhaps it would be best to start the chopping in his own branch of government. Perhaps the salaries for agency heads should be drastically lowered? Or, just maybe, the amount that is paid for benefits for these high ranking officials should be set on a sliding scale so that those who make more off the public dole pay more into their own benefits?
While we are at it, maybe we should consider eliminating benefits of the more patrician legislators lining up behind Scott, like Senator J.D. Alexander, who last month dismissively suggested that state employees should not expect a “free ride.” Yep, those are easy words to say when your granddaddy was the late agriculture tycoon and University of Florida benefactor Ben Hill Griffin. Perhaps Sen. Alexander, and those inclined to the governors’ massive cuts, should forfeit some or all of their salaries and benefits too? In that way, we can return to the days of old when being a legislator was a part-time position where men and women served with a sense of altruism—not with obtaining good pay and great insurance benefits for their families.
For that matter, if the Scott disciples in the legislature are really serious about cuts, then maybe they can advocate allowing legislators only a stipend for travel to session and lodging—at budget motels no less. In that way, when these same legislators ask teachers, police officers, emergency management personnel, judges, prosecutors and public defenders to sacrifice for the good of the state—then they can start by showing their own sacrifices.
Ahh…it’s the Monday before Florida’s legislative session and one can only dream. Tomorrow, as reality returns, we pray that rationality and common sense do, too, so that our legislative leaders will have the guts to remind Governor Scott that they are his co-equals—not his serfs and errands boys.