Steyn on S-CHIP

Mark Steyn at the top of his form:

On Thursday Nancy Pelosi, as is the fashion, used the phrase “the children” like some twitchy verbal tic, a kind of Democrat Tourette’s syndrome: “This is a discussion about America’s children… We could establish ourselves as the children’s Congress… Come forward on behalf of the children... I tried to do that when I was sworn in as Speaker surrounded by children. It was a spontaneous moment, but it was one that was clear in its message: we are gaveling this House to order on behalf of the children…”

Etc. So what is the best thing America could do “for the children”? Well, it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a system of unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme.

Comments

[cactus]

How about not running up a massive debt and forcing the children to pay it back when they grow up? OMB Table 7.1 tells me that the last four Republican administrations, GW, GHW, Reagan, and Ford all increased the public debt as a percentage of GDP, in some cases massively.

On the other hand, the last five Democratic administrations, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman, all decreased the public debt as a percentage of GDP. It increased under FDR, but then he was fighting WW2.

[JorgXMcKie]

So, it all depends on what party the president belongs to as he grabs the giant steering wheel of the economy? The economy and federal debt go precisely where the President directs? How nice. It does make it all so incredibly easy to get what we want.

I'm incredibly unhappy that those rotten Republicans instituted that evil Social Security scheme and continually raise its benefits while refusing to adequately fund it all in an effort to buy votes. Why, during the first 60 years of its existence the Republicans typically owned the Government Economic Steering Wheel due to their wild manipulations of voting due to their control of Social Security. (And when the Repugs added the massive debt of Medicare while claiming it would only cost a few Billion a year I pretty much gave up on them as a party of fiscal restraint.)

[cactus]

JorgXMcKie,

"So, it all depends on what party"... Well, let's see... In the excerpt provided by our host, Steyn mentioned Pelosi, and "Democrat Tourette’s syndrome".... so I'm thinking, yeah, that's what he wrote. He wrote that one party saddles kids with debt. And I responded to what was written. Or was I supposed to respond without mentioning a Party? How does that work? Would you still have an issue with me mentioning a party if my response was "Megadittoes"?

That said, I do agree that one party saddles kids with debt. And I do agree that debt is a Party issue. The President usually gets his way on taxes (what, you don't think the 1993 tax hikes were in GHW's budget, or GW's 2001 tax cuts were in the budget Clinton had submitted, do you?), and the President usually gets his way on spending. So what else do you need to move the levers of debt up or down?

Newsflash here... Reagan got debt as far as the eyes could see because he put a dent into real tax revenue, and spent up a storm. Not because of Nancy Pelosi or the Loch Ness Monster.

As to SS... SS runs a surplus and has for every year of its existence bar one so far. It uses that surplus to buy Treasury bonds and the government then spends the money. (If you want them to spend less, recent history says you probably want to vote Democratic in the next Presidential election, doesn't it?) Are you now saying that the government won't pay back those bonds in years when it has to spend more money than it takes in? And if not, is it going to default on all its bonds, or just SS bonds? Can it pick and choose? What if it chooses not to pay back bonds held by Goldman Sachs? Is that OK too, or is it just SS that bothers you?

[JorgXMcKie]

Nope, it's people who firmly believe they can spend my money better than I can. Tell you what. Let's let everyone who thinks we are undertaxed pay higher taxes, which they can then direct to whatever good cause they like.

Like any budget, what is determinate for me is what you get for what you spend. The goodness of debt depends on what you got in return as well as how it is paid off. Reagan's spending and debt got rid of the Soviet threat, among other things, and I am happy to pay that debt. Pelosi wants to take my money and give it to other people that she feels deserve it more than I *and* go into debt to do it. I don't want to do that.

Much like going into debt to buy a house, I feel that certain kinds of debt are a tool. Others kinds of debt are like borrowing against the equity in your house to pay your credit card bills then immediately running up the credit card debt again. Reagan practiced the first kind of debt (while helping fix the Carter Fiasco [worst. president. ever. Currently worst. ex-president. ever.]) and Pelosi, et al practice the second kind.

Social Security and Medicaid and the currently Democratic S-CHIP are examplars of the second kind of debt. You fund the kind you like and let me fund the kind I like and we'll both get along. But, then, for liberals, Democrats, and such that is not an option. Since everyone but them is stupid, ignorant, evil or some combination of the three, they *must* force us to do what they think is the right thing.

Having been poor most of my life, I recognize these tyrant wannabes for what they (and evidently you) are. No, thanks.

[cactus]

"You fund the kind you like and let me fund the kind I like and we'll both get along. But, then, for liberals, Democrats, and such that is not an option."

We may not agree on what spending priorities should be... I'd like to see more spending on infrastructure, for instance, and a lot less on the military. And you have other places you'd like to see our dollars - yours and mine - spent. Because when you describe Reagan's spending the USSR under the table, you describe that as a good thing, whether the rest of us wanted our money spent that way or not, and my bet is, unlike me, you didn't think invading Iraq was not a good idea in 2003. Now, does that mean you're a tyrant wannabe, for spending not just your money but mine - today and tomorrow (that debt has to be repaid, doesn't it?)? Or does that argument only apply to the sorts of spending you think are not useful?

[JorgXMcKie]

Nope. It means that I don't want to insist that I have the right to use government to force you to spend money in ways you don't like. Let's just have a big checkoff list. I'd like to see a lot of money spent on *some* kinds of infrastructure and would like to see a lot less spent on social programs that I find counter-productive, ineffective, and/or perverse. I'm perfectly willing to let you refuse to let your tax money fund wars you don't like. Are you as willing to let me refuse to have my tax money spent in ways I don't like? Or you a tyrant in actuality?

I think the Soviet threat was very real and needed to be stopped. Were you among those who thought they couldn't be defeated and so rather than risk war we should just capitulate? At the time, in 20033, I, like all top Democrats except Feingold, thought that Saddam had or was developing WMD, and that he had demonstrated he was a madman who would invade other countries. I also thought (and was right) that he was in violation of several UN Resolutions, was undermining the Oil-for-Food Program, and was responsible for at least 10s of thousands of deaths among the Iraqi people, including the infamous 5,000 babies/ month. Am I to infer you were okay with that? Plus, of course, he was playing cat-and-mouse with the /UN inspection teams. Or perhaps you would have been okay with an Al Gore led invasion.

Meanwhile, you wish to strongarm me (using the government) into propping up the SS Ponzi scheme? What's the matter? Aren't you brave enough to try to con me directly, or do you just enjoy being a tyrant?

[cactus]

I used to have a book on my desk (now I have it in storage) written by a Soviet dissident called "Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?"

I can get into his reasons for expecting it to collapse, but basically, I myself figured the country was built on an unsustainable foundation and its collapse was only a matter of time. Spending a fortune to make it collapse a year or two earlier seems a silly investment, even in hindsight.

"Am I to infer you were okay with that?"

Only if I am to infer by the fact that you're not out marching on Washington DC demanding that the Dear Leader of Korea be removed that you're pro-Dear Leader.

"Or perhaps you would have been okay with an Al Gore led invasion."

My reason for being against Iraq was simple. By 2003, it was evident that we had allowed butchers, drug lords, and religious fanatics to carve up the country into a bunch of fiefdoms. I figured a similar mistake in Iraq would have far more serious ramifications.

If there had been a President Gore, and he made a similar mistake in Afghanistan, I'd be equally opposed to his going into Iraq.

"Meanwhile, you wish to strongarm me (using the government) into propping up the SS Ponzi scheme? What's the matter? Aren't you brave enough to try to con me directly, or do you just enjoy being a tyrant?"

We're still back to the "Forcing me to spend on things JorgXMcKie likes is acceptable, but any spending he is opposed to is tyranny."