The Elephant In The Room

Yup!  Mitt Romney stepped in it.  It could be called an SIIC, a self-inflicted implosive comment.  Not that Barack Obama ("corpse-man", "57 states", "I bowled a 129 - it was like special olympics", "...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them", plus countless others), Nancy Pelosi ("we have to pass it to see what's in it"), Harry Reid ("the new Capitol Visitors Center means I won't have to smell the tourists anymore"), and Joe Biden (where to begin, such a target rich environment) have never said something inappropriate.  But of course the media doesn't go ballistic when they do.

Romney's faux pas could and should have been stated better.  The comment was an unfortunate generalization of government programs and voter loyalties.  But we all know what point he was making.  Out of control government spending on entitlements is the elephant in the room, the central issue that is what this election is all about.  The issue must be dealt with or the America we have known will cease to exist.  Romney's comment that nearly half the people in America don't pay taxes and/or are receiving government benefits should not have shocked anyone, because it is true.

According to the Census Bureau, 49% of Americans live in households that receive Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, disability payments, and housing assistance, up from 30% in the 1980's.  Of course the recipients contributed to the first three programs, but on average not nearly as much as they are taking out over their lifetimes.  According to the Tax Policy Center, 47% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes, up from 27% just twenty years ago, though many of those folks do pay payroll taxes and state and local taxes.  Certainly much of government spending is appropriate, but the growth in such spending is beyond irresponsible.  Everyone has to know by now that the country cannot sustain the rapidly rising costs of entitlement programs that are bankrupting us.

Our next president and Congress have two vitally important priorities that must both be addressed.  The one to focus on immediately is the implementation of policies that stimulate economic growth to create private sector jobs and provide personal income for consumers to spend.  Those new jobs would put more people on the tax rolls, producing an increase in government revenue that could go a long way towards reducing and eventually eliminating our staggering budget deficit.  The current economic policy of maintaining low interest rates to get people to borrow money is not working.  Too much debt is the problem, and creating more is certainly not the solution.  People want to earn money, not borrow it, and the only way to do that is by unleashing private enterprise and free markets instead of restraining and punishing them with unnecessary rules, regulations, more paperwork and higher taxes.

Why do Democrats always get this backwards?  Is it because they believe Americans will vote for them if they promise that government will continue to give them everything for free, or at least at what is effectively a big discount?  Of course they would never admit it, so their favorite explanation is that capitalism creates income inequality.  Yes it does.  But it also makes life better for those at the bottom than any other economic system yet devised.  That is the part Democrats either don't get or don't want the voting public to know.

The other equally vital priority is to reform all entitlement programs to reduce costs by eliminating unnecessary expenditures and improving operational efficiencies while maintaining the support services that are required in a modern society.  Democrats have no interest in addressing this issue.  Apparently they don't even see it as a problem.  Not only that, they respond to any efforts by Republicans to deal with it by accusing them of planning to starve the hungry, abandon the elderly, ignore the homeless and eat the children.  That is just plain absurd.  But Republicans do not do a very good job of communicating what support they will provide to those who need it.

Republicans need to convince Americans they will maintain the social safety nets that are necessary in a morally responsible society, that they can take care of the needs of the poor and those left behind and help them build a better life for themselves.  They need to advocate and demonstrate compassion for the less fortunate and display a desire to help those who are struggling.  They must acknowledge they will preserve programs that feed the poor, care for the elderly, shelter the homeless, provide basic health care for the indigent and create opportunities for all to work to improve their lives.

But Republicans must differentiate their solutions to the problems of poverty and destitution from the Democrats.  They must explain that throwing money the country does not have at the problem does not solve it.  They must argue that their goal is to give people the tools to become more self-reliant and the skills to take advantage of opportunities to improve themselves rather than encouraging them to become permanently dependent on government.  They must pledge to create real jobs to help the underclass escape the poverty and hopelessness they suffer and participate in productive society.  And Republicans need to point out that the only way for those on the bottom rung of the ladder to improve their quality of life and living standards is through an economic environment that encourages private enterprise and free markets to grow businesses and create more jobs for all.  That is what capitalism does.

The real question that Americans must ask themselves is what kind of president do we need right now?  Should we choose a president who may be in tune with what half the people want today, even though satisfying that half leads to bigger government, high unemployment, negligible economic growth, falling incomes, declining quality of life, social polarization, reduced personal freedom, partisan justice, public sector insolvency and increased national security risks?  Can we survive a president who opens up the candy jar and says take all you want because someone else will pay for it?

Should we reject a presidential candidate because he may be out of touch with many of the people because he was successful in his many occupations and maybe does not understand or participate in the hip hop music, the video games, the fashions, the violent movies, i.e., the whole hedonistic, self-indulgent lifestyle Americans pursue today.  Or do we need an adult who understands we cannot perpetually spend money we don't have, that private enterprise is the engine that generates economic growth and prosperity, that our tax system must be reformed, that government directed allocation of capital and redistribution of income results in economic stagnation and social chaos, that we must maintain a strong national security capability to defend against foreign aggression, and that we have an obligation to turn over a healthy country to future generations.

Americans have never had a more clear choice.  Do we need a president who acts like he wants to be everybody's sugar daddy, or one who can make tough decisions and put limits on access to the cookie jar?  Do we want a society of spoiled children who have no clue or care about where their selfish behavior leads, or do we want to preserve and expand the vision of America's founding fathers that led to the most productive and affluent country in the history of the planet, affluence created by a melting pot of immigrants and their descendants who believed in personal freedom, individual responsibility, rule of law, hard work and equal opportunity.

Who is really out of touch?  Seems to me it is the folks who think bigger and bigger government can create meaningful jobs and that growing budget deficits can go on forever.