Socialism Triumphant?
Socialism is on a course to triumph in America, columnist Patrick Chisholm crows [see "Triumph of the Redistributionist Left" by Patrick Chisholm, The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 23: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0123/p25s01-cogn.html].
"The political left in America is emerging victorious," proclaims Chisholm. "Forces favoring the left are virtually locked in. Even with Republicans in control, big government is destined to get a lot bigger."
In support of his view, he cites several "trends" that favor the continued progress of "redistributionism" in the U.S.A.
1. Discretionary spending, affectionately known as "pork," has increased a whopping 27.9% during the five years of George W. Bush's presidency. In 2005, Congress authorized 13,997 "pork barrel" projects, a tenfold increase since 1994.
2. Mandatory spending, e.g. Social Security and Medicare, locked into place by law, cannot be cut without changing the law.
3. The new prescription drug entitlement will cost American taxpayers an additional $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.
4. Entitlements in general have risen from about 30% of the federal budget in the 1960s to nearly 60% today.
5. The federal government's consumption of America's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown to 20% and is expected to increase to 30% by 2040.
6. Defense spending, which made up 45% of the federal budget in the 1960s, has decreased to 17%, the lost moneys being gobbled up by entitlements.
Finally, says Chisholm, our political system favors the left. Special interest groups lobby fiercely and successfully for particular benefits, but the great mass of taxpayers who must fund those benefits is incapable of lobbying in any meaningful way.
Sounds like it's all over but the shouting. Redistribution, here we come.
But not so fast, there: let's take a look at the real world first.
As reported by Minnesota Public Radio, "Officials [in Duluth, MN] warn that the city's generous coverage for retired employees could eventually gobble up Duluth's entire budget--with nothing left for police and firefighters, parks or street maintenance" [http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/ ...]. The city faces an $11 million "hole" in its 2006 budget, and is obligated to pay $150 million in health care costs over the next 30 years. Every city service is at risk, says the mayor. And you can be sure Duluth is not the only town in this predicament.
As this is written, the Ford Motor Co. has announced a plan to shut down at least a fourth of its manufacturing plants in the U.S.A. Ford sales in North America have been taking a beating; at the same time, Ford is obligated to pay generous benefits to its retirees. General Motors finds itself in much the same position. How can these corporations keep on taking losses while paying benefits?
Then there's the example of the socialist economies of Western Europe, where EU members can't even manage a birth rate that will see them through the century. The quick fix, a massive influx of Muslim immigrants, has failed. These stagnant economies are increasingly challenged to honor their commitments to universal health care, short work weeks and long vacations, job security for the incompetent and the unproductive, subsidies to failing industries, and perpetual unemployment payments to the perpetually unemployed.
Politics aside, real-world experience shows that "redistributionist" government can only expand so far before it collapses on itself.
Why must it inevitably fail?
Because the cost of goods and services is inflated when the government provides them! To provide these, governments must set up and fund bureaucracies--so you pay the intrinsic cost of, say, healthcare, plus an administrative cost which may exceed the intrinsic cost.
As we see in Europe, high taxes, over-regulation, and government growth combine to inhibit and depress economic growth. It also depresses individual and business productivity; and, in Europe, helps to depress the birth rate, too--so that you have fewer and fewer citizens working to pay for more and more benefits to those who are not working.
Taking Chisholm's article literally, it's just another example of the secular humanist delusion that man orders his own destiny, shaping history and society as he pleases, without reference to God or God's laws. The Bible endorses private property, and a limited government charged primarily with the administration of justice. When we depart from the Biblical model, we do greatly err.
So, yes, the trends do seem to indicate that the U.S. is pursuing a "redistributionist" vision--in much the same way that a man jumps off a ten-story building with an umbrella in his hand, and as he plummets past the fifth floor, says to himself, "So far, so good!"
Only that's not what they're saying in Duluth these days...
"The political left in America is emerging victorious," proclaims Chisholm. "Forces favoring the left are virtually locked in. Even with Republicans in control, big government is destined to get a lot bigger."
In support of his view, he cites several "trends" that favor the continued progress of "redistributionism" in the U.S.A.
1. Discretionary spending, affectionately known as "pork," has increased a whopping 27.9% during the five years of George W. Bush's presidency. In 2005, Congress authorized 13,997 "pork barrel" projects, a tenfold increase since 1994.
2. Mandatory spending, e.g. Social Security and Medicare, locked into place by law, cannot be cut without changing the law.
3. The new prescription drug entitlement will cost American taxpayers an additional $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.
4. Entitlements in general have risen from about 30% of the federal budget in the 1960s to nearly 60% today.
5. The federal government's consumption of America's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown to 20% and is expected to increase to 30% by 2040.
6. Defense spending, which made up 45% of the federal budget in the 1960s, has decreased to 17%, the lost moneys being gobbled up by entitlements.
Finally, says Chisholm, our political system favors the left. Special interest groups lobby fiercely and successfully for particular benefits, but the great mass of taxpayers who must fund those benefits is incapable of lobbying in any meaningful way.
Sounds like it's all over but the shouting. Redistribution, here we come.
But not so fast, there: let's take a look at the real world first.
As reported by Minnesota Public Radio, "Officials [in Duluth, MN] warn that the city's generous coverage for retired employees could eventually gobble up Duluth's entire budget--with nothing left for police and firefighters, parks or street maintenance" [http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/ ...]. The city faces an $11 million "hole" in its 2006 budget, and is obligated to pay $150 million in health care costs over the next 30 years. Every city service is at risk, says the mayor. And you can be sure Duluth is not the only town in this predicament.
As this is written, the Ford Motor Co. has announced a plan to shut down at least a fourth of its manufacturing plants in the U.S.A. Ford sales in North America have been taking a beating; at the same time, Ford is obligated to pay generous benefits to its retirees. General Motors finds itself in much the same position. How can these corporations keep on taking losses while paying benefits?
Then there's the example of the socialist economies of Western Europe, where EU members can't even manage a birth rate that will see them through the century. The quick fix, a massive influx of Muslim immigrants, has failed. These stagnant economies are increasingly challenged to honor their commitments to universal health care, short work weeks and long vacations, job security for the incompetent and the unproductive, subsidies to failing industries, and perpetual unemployment payments to the perpetually unemployed.
Politics aside, real-world experience shows that "redistributionist" government can only expand so far before it collapses on itself.
Why must it inevitably fail?
Because the cost of goods and services is inflated when the government provides them! To provide these, governments must set up and fund bureaucracies--so you pay the intrinsic cost of, say, healthcare, plus an administrative cost which may exceed the intrinsic cost.
As we see in Europe, high taxes, over-regulation, and government growth combine to inhibit and depress economic growth. It also depresses individual and business productivity; and, in Europe, helps to depress the birth rate, too--so that you have fewer and fewer citizens working to pay for more and more benefits to those who are not working.
Taking Chisholm's article literally, it's just another example of the secular humanist delusion that man orders his own destiny, shaping history and society as he pleases, without reference to God or God's laws. The Bible endorses private property, and a limited government charged primarily with the administration of justice. When we depart from the Biblical model, we do greatly err.
So, yes, the trends do seem to indicate that the U.S. is pursuing a "redistributionist" vision--in much the same way that a man jumps off a ten-story building with an umbrella in his hand, and as he plummets past the fifth floor, says to himself, "So far, so good!"
Only that's not what they're saying in Duluth these days...
