What
do you want from the next Congress?
Do you want lower taxes? Who doesn't? It sounds great to pay less in taxes. But there are consequences worth
considering, such as the increased difficulty in lowering our debt.
Do you want to lower the debt? A
lower debt also sounds pretty good. We would pay less in interest for it
over time. But reducing the debt means one or both of two unpopular
ideas:
(1) Raise taxes. Good luck! No one believes that they are not being
taxed enough!
(2) Cut spending. But that will get a strong reaction. That is
because almost all of us are affected by government spending. Consider:
Do you know of anyone who depends upon Medicare or Social Security? Odds
are you probably do. Try telling them government spending is bad.
It seems that when people want spending cuts, they think it won't affect
them. And they don't want to handle the consequences of those spending
reductions.
Governments exist to tax us and to spend the money for collective purposes.
Few would argue that the government needs to spend tax money on defending us, assisting
the sick, the young and the elderly and in maintaining infrastructure like
freeways and bridges. These kinds of expenditures take up most of the
budget and are not seriously debated among members of Congress.
What about the part of the budget that is debated? These expenditures are known as "discretionary" because they go
beyond the typical outlays each year.
One example of discretionary spending is the money spent on fighting the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some have calculated total expenditures so far
to be in the trillions for both. It shouldn't be hard to cut this
spending, perhaps even completely, on the grounds that neither nation was any
threat to us.
But the problem is that wars are not fought with any sense of rationale or any
attempt to win. The fact is that we have not fought a war for the valid
reasons of self-defense in several decades. Our wars, at least from Vietnam on, have been fought to enrich the "War Party" of contractors,
generals and those who live to challenge the patriotism of others.
Winning the war is not the goal; helping this party of people make a stack of
money is.
What if we wanted something environmentally or otherwise socially
responsible? We could agree to a tax raise to fund an extravagant and
efficient train system, modeled after the one in Japan. But how could we
stop the automobile lobby, which usually opposes this idea? Or convince
people to give up their cars which cause so much of the pollution that we
breathe?
There is nothing new for Congress to offer us anymore. Our relationships
with those in power no longer have anything to do with money, other than the
usual "pork" given to some members of our districts.
Now is the time to focus on the things our elected officials should really
provide -- the courage to confront the criminals among their own, the candor to
tell us the truths we do not want to hear, and the creativity with which to
solve new problems. Some day we may yet mend the rift in trust that the
public has with those in power. And with that trust we would feel better
about who we are and where we live.
Sometimes it is better to get what you need rather than what you want.
