In college, I learned that a fundamental economic principle is that the purpose of business is to maximize profit. I also learned that the definition of political behavior is acting to advance one’s own interest. The concepts seem to be inextricably intertwined with human nature, which is dominated by the notions of “everyman for himself” and “I want what I want when I want it.” It all sounds childish, but children grow up to be adults and nothing in this basic way of being seems to change.
On Saturday, I read an interesting article in the Financial Times about how West Virginians are reacting to the recent Bowles-Simpson recommendations aimed at cutting billions of dollars from the federal deficit. Among other things, the recommendations include:
– Raising the Social Security eligibility age
– Decreasing Medicare and Medicaid benefits
– Raising the gasoline tax
– Eliminating deductions for home mortgage interest
and lowering income tax rates and simplifying them by dividing them into three tiers.
Erskine Bowles is quoted as saying that doing nothing will result in nothing short of economic catastrophe. “The markets will come. They will be swift and they will be severe and this country will never be the same.”
Financial Times then interviewed “The People”.
The reactions were “swift” and “severe” and they prove the point in my first paragraph. A 62-year-old man said that, when considering what to cut, everything should be looked at except Medicare and Social Security. Also, he is against increasing the gasoline tax because every time he gets into a vehicle, he fills up the tank. Something tells me that a 40-year old man who uses public transportation is not much bothered by these issues. On the other hand, if he currently takes a mortgage interest deduction, he doesn’t want to give it up.
Financial Times referred to Mr. Bowles as succinctly pointing out that people fear that “the government will just raise taxes and keep spending,” but it is elementary, my dear citizen, that Medicare and Social Security require government spending. If you will not accept cuts in that spending, there are only two ways to pay for it: (1) raise taxes or; (2) print more money and thus increase the deficit. We have been choosing the latter course ever since George W. Bush entangled us in two wars without raising taxes.
The point is, when people say government is too big and spending must be cut, they have to accept spending cuts on programs that they like as much as those they don’t. Otherwise, nothing will be cut, because there is a program or benefit for everybody and since everybody wants what they want when they want it, it follows that nobody wants their program or benefit diminished in any way. One way or another, though, we are all going to have to take our medicine. The alternative appears much worse.
Debbie Pritts is a Legal Nurse Consultant for Wexler Wallace in Chicago, IL.
0 Comments