Obama – Reid Ideology Destroys America’s Hope
[Democrats] are willing to drive off the fiscal cliff if necessary, because chaos and crisis provide them with the pretext for more government intervention and control, which is their ultimate goal.
By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
As soon as the elections were over, a wave of commentaries extolling the virtues of compromise appeared in the press. The common theme is that it is time for Democrats and Republicans alike to end partisan gridlock—to make compromises that will shrink federal deficits without driving us off “the fiscal cliff.”
That said, gridlock has its defenders. They fondly remember “the good old days” in the ’90s when divided government (Democratic White House, GOP Congress) produced a gridlock that kept spending increases relatively modest and eliminated budget deficits.
Gridlock today, however, is not as benign as it was then. Also, the ’90s constituted a very special case that cannot be replicated today.
In the ’90s, gridlock kept the spigot of federal spending stuck at a relatively slow growth rate. Today’s gridlock between the Boehner-led House and Team Obama has stuck the federal spigot in the wide-open position of perennial trillion-dollar deficits.
The ’90s are an inapt comparison for another reason: That decade featured a fiscal “perfect storm” to wash away red ink: The end of the Cold War led to defense spending cuts; the welfare reform of 1996 slashed welfare expenditures and increased the number of taxpaying workers; the Roth IRA legislation of 1997 induced millions of Americans to pay taxes on their private retirement funds up front; the “Greenspan put”-fueled stock-market bubble gave Uncle Sam a windfall of capital-gains revenue. In short, the propitious confluence of events that stanched the flow of red ink in the late ’90s was a one-off phenomenon.
So, we need compromise rather than gridlock, right? But what if compromise is not a viable option either? Compromise may be what fair, reasonable, mature, and enlightened people do; it may be the democratic way, but the problem is that there are limits to compromise, dictated by the immovable truths of economic realities.
We see this at the local level in school district contract negotiations with teachers’ unions. The union asks for 10 percent annual pay increases; the school board offers 2 percent; they compromise at 6 percent. That may work for decades, but what happens when the local taxpayers go through a prolonged economic slowdown and the tax base in the district stagnates? There comes a breaking point where teacher compensation can’t rise as much as it used to, if at all, and maybe even retirement benefits have to be cut back because taxpayers simply can’t afford additional tax increases.
A similar dynamic plays out with the federal budget. The big spenders propose a large increase in spending (an increase above an assumed projected increase, i.e., the infamous “base line”); the opposition proposes a smaller increase; they compromise and spending continues on a relentless upward trajectory. There is a ratchet effect whereby total spending can only move in one direction: higher. But “trees don’t grow to the sky,” and eventually government spending produces so much accumulated debt that there isn’t enough wealth to tax or borrow to finance spending, so the central bank steps in with “quantitative easing” and financial manipulations. Eventually, the debt burden and the inflation of the monetary unit proceed to the point where they threaten the financial viability of not only the government but the entire economy—the net result of a succession of well-meaning, “fair”-minded compromises.
The pickle we are in today is excruciating. In the first place, the big spenders clearly won’t make any more than token compromises. President Obama came out of the election suddenly asking for tax hikes twice as large as he had requested earlier. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that Social Security was off the table. Since Reid has blown up Congress’ constitutional budget-making process for several years already, we know he isn’t bluffing. They are willing to drive off the fiscal cliff if necessary, because chaos and crisis provide them with the pretext for more government intervention and control, which is their ultimate goal.
If there is to be any meaningful compromise, the Republicans will be the ones who make it. Yet, if the GOP compromises by agreeing to raise taxes while not curbing runaway spending, the result will be slower economic growth and probably lower federal revenues. Nothing positive will have been accomplished and the government will continue careening toward an eventual financial crackup. We are told that reasonable people compromise, but if compromise leads to disaster, can it be a virtue?
Gridlock or compromise: Heads, Big Government wins; tails, “we, the people,” lose.
Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.
Also please consider:
Has Obama Already Bankrupted America?
More people realizing Obama IS a socialist
Obama Has Stolen $5.3 Trillion From Our Children In Order To Make Himself Look Good
Debt quotes
Obama’s Achievement – Gov’t Has Become Gigantic Wealth-Transfer Machine
Obama sued banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans
A billion here a trillion there, soon you’re talking about real money
People who will vote for Obama still believe what he says
Obama Has Stolen $5.3 Trillion From Our Children In Order To Make Himself Look Good
Debt Now $16 TRILLION and Climbing Fast
Debt quotes
Mark Levin: Obama is a Marxist
Debt Jumps More Than $1T for 5th Straight Fiscal Year
Fed’s holding of US debt up 452% under Obama
After the Sovereign Debt Crisis Comes the Deleveraging
Politicians as Economic Arsonists
Too Much Debt: Our Biggest Economic Problem
California and Illinois are living in Obama’s second term
Twenty-Nine Reasons to Be Angry And/Or Scared – Still
The Real End Game, We’re Coming To The End
Obama leads “Forward” to ruin and destruction
Not Worth a Continental
So you think we’re better off?
New report – Billion$ in Obama’s auto bailout went to rich unions
Spending and debt causing global slowdown
Fed’s holding of US debt up 452% under Obama
Beck Explains Why the Federal Reserve Is a Complete ‘Scam’
Obama’s real spending record
By Incentivizing Debt, We’ve Guaranteed Debt-Serfdom and Stagnation
CBO: spending binge endangers our children’s future
Dangers of Government Dependency – Econ 101
Sen. Dirksen Left Vs Right in 1964
CBO Agrees: Less debt, lower tax rates good for economy, jobs & growth
Leftists call for more of the same – spending and debt
Potential Victories for Individual Rights in 2012
Please Excuse My (Failed) President
Obama campaign panicking over bad economic news – “not a single idea” – Krauthammer
On Shills, Technocrats, Politicians and the Sinking Ship
Economy tanking under Obama
You lie! Krauthammer: Obama spending claim “unbelievable distortion of the truth”
Why Obama Failed
U.S. Set to Lead World Over Debt Cliff Into Recession
Rubio: “Do people back home fully understand”
Government has doubled since 2001 – Sen. Coburn
Obama railed against deficits until he became radical record breaking big spender
The other Obama on PAYGO
Obama’s $5 Trillion Moment
Paul Ryan: President’s failed policies causing record poverty
Gov. Mitch Daniels: Debt ‘Will Lead to National Ruin’
U.S. Student Debt To Reach $1.4 Trillion by 2020
34 Shocking Facts About U.S. Debt That Should Set America On Fire With Anger
King of debt
Return to Debt Mountain
15 Trillion Dollars In Debt, 45 Million Americans On Food Stamps And Zero Solutions On The Horizon
Obama warns Americans not to panic while he ruins the economy
What Do You Believe — Cash or Government Propaganda?
National debt really $24 TRILLION
THE FALLACY OF A RETURN TO NORMALCY
42% See U.S. Debt Default Somewhat Likely in Next 5 Years
New Obama Record – Debt Growth to Top Economic Growth for Decade
Help Make A Difference By Sharing These Articles On Facebook, Twitter And Elsewhere: