America At A Crossroads, Part III
No One Side Of The Aisle Has The Moral High Ground
There are so many ways to
view the various issues which are important in this election cycle. But, before
I continue with the issues which are so relevant to many of us this election, I
think it is VERY important to lay down an absolute.
Yes, absolutes in politics
are an oxymoron typically, but as poisoned by partisan-based vitriol, the
nearly complete loss of civility online and indeed in the world itself, there
is something I simply want to state for the record.
Just because you support a
left-leaning/liberal ideology which typically is associated in the modern
culture with caring more about homeless people, the elderly, minorities, the
sick, the down and out, and so forth; it does not mean others do not. You do not have a monopoly on compassion and
caring.
What we may disagree on is the best way to help people who need it. You see, I can tell the parable about giving a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. Of course, the modern variant, give a man a fish a day long enough, he will feel he is entitled to a fish from you every day. Why can't we look to have a program to get fishing poles to those who need them, and some training?
Another way myself and
many others who are from my side of the aisle view problem solving is this: if
someone is an addict, and they need help, you can try to force it on them. But if they are not interested in treatment,
rehab, and helping get themselves back on their feet, how successful is any
therapy going to be? Addicts have to
want to get help for the help to be useful in the long term.
My final example I tend to
use is this: I believe if you give a teenager a car when they turn 16, just
hand it over no strings attached and pay for everything, they may invest a few
of their own dollars to trick it up a bit, but all in all, I contend nearly all
of them will take worse care of that car than a teenager who had to work all
summer at a job to save up for 15-20% of the cost of the car. The one who worked for it, who pays for their
own gas and have to wash it themselves, they will take way better care of the
car. And if they do trick it up, they
will STILL take better care of the car.
Now this may not be true for every single person, but I will be willing
to bet nearly 4 in 5 teenagers would fit this model exactly. Working hard to save for the car instills a
sense of accomplishment, responsibility and personal investment in the
vehicle.
You may disagree with all
of my little parables and beliefs, but you will note I did not suggest the man
starve to death, that you simply let junkies die, or young people are not
allowed to have cars. All of those
stories simply suggest another approach to the same goals. One that gets people to accept responsibility
for their choices, and to invest in themselves and their life and can provide a
sense of accomplishment along the way.
So please, quit tossing
around the idea I want to see the sick slaughtered, the poor living homeless
with no medicine, women chained in a kitchen and pregnant, etc. etc. etc. I don't want the air dirty, our oceans
polluted, our streets full of vagrants, etc.
I want everyone to have the chance to have a wonderful and fulfilling
life. I want everyone to get a good
education, find good careers in which they can find success and happiness, have
a nice home, raise a nice family (if they so wish), invest in themselves and
their future, and live a long healthy, productive life.
So, to state it clearly as
an absolute: we share common goals, we simply have a difference of opinion on
the best way to get there. You may view
it as a moral imperative everyone have the exact same outcome of results, and
others will contend you can only provide the opportunity for everyone to have a
chance to succeed in life. Life, fate,
circumstances all defy any attempt to control them fully.
If you can't even agree to
this, well, I doubt we can ever have an intelligent, polite discussion or
debate on the issues. You would have
already staked your claim to the moral high ground and view everyone else as
beneath you. If you are that far gone,
well, I doubt anyone really likes talking with you anyhow.
Runaway Debt and A Balanced Budget Amendment
A realistic way of dealing
with our runaway debt problem is priority number one for me this election. You cannot simply wish or pretend you have
more money and make it so. Plus, I find
it inherently immoral to saddle our children and grandchildren with a crippling
amount of debt simply because our generation could not even attempt to budget
wisely. There is almost no difference to
me the government going into their room, breaking open their piggy bank and
taking their money. Sooner or later the
currency will fail. It will be a global
collapse as well, as our failure will have a cascade effect throughout Europe, Asia and in every aspect of the global economy.
When the house of cards
comes falling down, no government program or area will be immune. If you get the elderly, the sick, the poor,
the severely handicapped and other such groups dependent upon government
programs for everything from medical care, to housing, to food, to other living
expenses; what do you think will happen to these groups when the money runs
out?
Those who would create
such a dependency on government by such groups are dooming them in the event of
a crash. Our goal as a country should be
to help these people where we can in being able to care for themselves as much
as possible, and to being productive where possible. Get them involved in communities and help
them cultivate a culture of sustainability and some independence.
This is the goal most
conservatives strive to reach with respect to social programs.
Did you know in Florida, our government
is required, constitutionally to balance it's budget every year? Indeed, it has been done every year, and in Florida there is not a
major crisis where people are starving to death, or where old people are being
tossed into the streets with no medical care.
Wow.
My number one issue is to
get a balanced budget amendment passed.
It will require accountability in programs, allow the country to determine
the priorities in spending and will foster an environment of programs either
proving their viability or they will be eliminated and new ideas will have to
fill the void. It will stop stealing
from our children and grandchildren's futures and make our current generation
live within its means.
I could elaborate at great
length on the difference between the traditional struggling and poor in America and the
poor in other parts of the world. We can
shift our focus from providing cell phones and cigarettes to the poor to
feeding people, helping them find a home and a job. We really should be spending our tax dollars
much more wisely and carefully.
Before closing on the
budget talk, I want to take a moment to remind everyone how ridiculously our
government (yes Congress AND the President) handle budgeting. Do you know they use an accounting gimmick
called baseline budgeting when they calculate their numbers?
In case you are unfamiliar
with the term or concept, I will provide a quick description and you can verify
the accuracy of my description online easily.
Baseline budgeting requires projecting future costs of current programs
going forward, an admirable goal. The
problem is using the government's design, it assumes a 7-8% increase in funding
every program, every year going forward; just to maintain the status quo.
For example, if the
current budget has $100 Billion for road repairs and improvements say, then the
budget "assumes" to maintain the same level of service next year it
will be $108 Billion, and for two years out it will be $117B, and so on. So, when you see Congressmen talking about
how they "cut" 5% of the budget, what they really mean is they simply
lowered the rate of automatic increase in the budget from 8% to 3%. They are still spending more money than last
year, but the lingo makes it sound as though someone is actually
cutting/lowering spending. In my
example, a 5% cut means this: year one $100B, year two $103B, year three
$106.5B. There is no real
"cut" here.
So, I think it is
important the nomenclature, the automatic triggers in budgeting are revised to
be honest, and truthful. You should
assume a program will not have a fixed cost forever, but let the agencies
responsible for each program determine what is really needed for their
programs.
Baseline
budgeting Links:
Wikipedia
has a reasonable and accurate description
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/08/04/a-budget-cutting-deal-that-boosts-federal-spending/
http://townhall.com/columnists/terrypaulson/2012/05/07/time_to_end_the_us_debt_accelerator_baseline_budgeting/page/full/
Comments
Post a Comment