The Ascent of Rants

Moving from "Primal Screams" to more evolved views—on the dismal current state of public policy and our apparent direction—I'd like to pick up on several other themes: ones that we all learned (or should have learned) at our mothers' knees.  I'll start with the familiar mantra from mom's everywhere: "If you haven't something nice to say, say nothing." And, I'll apply that to a generalized frustration over our so-called leaders' inability to focus on the real issue. Instead of blaming one another, we ask, why can't they help us understand the underlying nature of the real problem (from there, one could hope, they may even begin to frame alternative solutions!)?.

They say that a stinking fish smells from the head down.  So, therefore, it's natural to look first to our head of state.  Regular readers of this BLOG may surprised by this, indeed it sticks in the throat, but I don't see Obama as the villain here.  Indeed, IMHO he's an intelligent and sincere guy doing the best he can with a very difficult situation.  Indeed, IMHO most politicians, pundits, proponents...people on all sides of the issue truly want what they think is best for our country.  The problem is that we have wildly different views of what that is.  But, can't we at least leave all the demagoguery behind for a moment and recognize the profoundly historic issue that's been festering for decades; the one that's been anesthetized in debt but now portentously demanding attention.  I'm referring, of course, to the seemingly unsolvable binomial equation: the one that would resolve the appropriate size of government versus its costs (or, more specifically, who pays for it).

Once again giving President Obama his due, I'll bet that he may have actually anticipated, perhaps even savored, a conclusive debate on the natural tension implied between the upper left and and lower right-hand perspectives illustrated below. What he may have failed to notice, however, is that a more fundamental breakdown of trust in government has pushed too many into the lower left: they've grown to like the taste of the government teat; and, like mother's milk, they expect it to come for free.  Worse, they're too often led to believe that there's a neglectful class of sugar daddies out there that could be made to pay!

Simple math here is somehow, sadly, inadequate: e.g., the simple fact that 5% (the rich) already pay over 80% of all taxes (while collectively receiving only around 40% of all income) somehow seems unfair—to many that pay much less (let alone the 50% that pay nothing at all!).  More puzzling still is the misplaced expectation that government can/should create real jobs (a topic for a different post?)

But, to begin understanding this paradox, let's return to "primal" human nature.

In one of the most insightful (if not most overlooked) books of our time Something For Nothing, Brian Tracy lays out a compelling case for the entirely natural forces behind our yearning to get more (than less) for our work.  Indeed, apologies for oversimplifying Bronowski's Ascent Of Man, the essence of technology, economics and civilization at large centers upon our need to get more (food, security, work done, etc) for less effort.  Taken to it's logical conclusion—one that we're now apparently reaching—too many people think that, by supporting institutions predicted by Plato, de'Tocqueville and others, that they too can "get something for nothing."

Comments

[ronbachman@healthcarevisions.net bachman]

Our founding fathers were for low taxes and small central govt. I don't think I would classify them as the self righteous! How about freedom fighters encouraging personal responsibility and individual liberty

[Doug]

Thanks Bo
Good point (as usual). what I was trying to imply, as evenhandedly and as subtly as I could, was that all four scenarios can be (and are) viewed cynically (when seen from the another perspective)

[Ron Bachman]

Good clarification on being PC. Maybe the lower right quadrant should eliminate the "Self-Righteous" and just leave "Right." Of course that would mesan the Upper Left (appropriately directioned), should be label "Wrong."

BTW the lower left could be "Bush Republicans" and the Upper Right would be "Dictatorships" or "Obamacracies"

[Scott Schaefer]

I think you have to start the debate focused on the proper role of government. Our forefathers were quite suspicious of big government and laid out explicit powers granted from the people to the government. All else is "power to the people." Unfortunately, power hungry politicians on all sides have twisted elements in the constitution like the commerce clause to extend their greedy fingers further and further into our lives. So, the spending, I posit, is a result rather than a cause. The real issue is whether or not we can put the governmental genie back into it's proper constitutional box.

[Doug]

Thanks for the input F.Scott
Sadly, "putting the government genie back in the bottle" will almost as hard as putting a broken egg back in its shell: e.g., once in place, entitlements and subsidies are politically difficult, and arguably unfair, to resend. How and who's going to tell seniors that `Medicare Part D payment for your drugs wasn't a good idea'? And how, after decades of contributions, do you tell SS recipients that we can no longer afford to underwrite your retirement?