Democrats will cut Defense but not Entitlements because fewer People in Defense vote Democrat
A cornerstone of the Obama presidency is social justice. Primarily through redistribution of wealth. Raising taxes to fund a growing welfare state. To help those not lucky enough to have won life’s lottery. Such as expanding the food stamp program (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Which has grown over 70% under President Obama.
Of course, this costs money. A lot of it. Added on top of an already costly welfare state. Driven by entitlement spending. Social Security. And Medicare. The biggest portions of federal spending. And it only keeps growing. Making the welfare state unsustainable without entitlement reform. But the politicians won’t touch entitlements. The third rail of politics. Because they’re afraid of losing votes in the next election. So they’d rather the country implode instead of reforming entitlements. And hope that implosion comes after they’re dead and buried. For as long as they get to enjoy their lives they could give a rat’s behind about future generations.
But they will touch defense spending. And often do when they are looking for more money for the welfare state. Even now. The Obama administration is proposing spending cuts in defense spending. That will shrink the size of the military. And cut pay and benefits for some of the lowest paid people in the country. The people who go in harm’s way for their country. They won’t touch entitlement spending because it may hurt people that typically vote Democrat. But they have no problem doing just that to those who wear a uniform to serve their country. Who don’t always vote Democrat. Just so they can have a generous welfare state like the European social democracies they so admire have. Who can have them because they don’t have large defense budgets. For the United States has been protecting them since World War II.
People can’t pay Taxes to fund a Welfare State without a Job that Provides an Income to Tax
If you watch television you’ve probably heard New York State’s commercials to attract new businesses to New York. Where the state is promising that businesses will be “100% tax-free for 10 years. No income tax, business, corporate, state or local taxes, sales and property taxes, or franchise fees.” Which is a clear admission from the state with the second highest tax burden in the country that high taxes hurt business.
The tax burden is so great in New York that some businesses have moved their operations out of state. And people with vacation homes in New York who only visit them a couple of weeks out of the year are selling them. As the state is taxing their incomes as if they are permanent New York residents. But despite these high taxes New York has suffered great budget deficits.
New York City is a Democrat city. Their high taxes pay for a large welfare state. A large public sector. And the enormous costs of their public sector benefits. In particular, health care and pension costs. But their high tax rates have shrunk the tax base. Because people can pack up and move out of state. Just as businesses can. Which is why they are doing a 180-degree turn on taxes. In a desperate attempt to get businesses to come to New York. For even if these businesses aren’t paying taxes their employees will. Income taxes. Sales taxes. Property taxes. Liquor taxes. Cigarette taxes. Etc. None of which they can pay if there are no jobs to give them an income the state can tax.
The Number of Abortions is having a Direct Impact on the Economy and Tax Revenue
New York City released its SUMMARY OF VITAL STATISTICS 2012 THE CITY OF NEW YORK PREGNANCY OUTCOMES this month. In it you can find why New York City, New York State and the federal government are having such a difficult time paying for their welfare states. It’s because of liberal Democrat policies. Not on the spending side of the equation. But on the revenue side of the equation.
In 2012 there were 73,815 abortions. Which are future taxpayers that weren’t allowed to be born. That’s right, before anyone pays the high tax rates of a welfare state they have to be born first. And when they are not born that’s future tax revenue the government cannot collect. If we look at a 20 year period (about a generation) and assume 73,815 abortions each of those 20 years that’s 1,476,300 people that never will pay taxes. If they earned on average $30,000 each that’s $44,289,000,000 of economic activity they never created. And at a New York State tax rate of 11.7% that’s $5,181,813,000 in lost tax revenue for the state.
But it gets worse. If you divide this number by two you get the total number of couples (a man and a woman) that could have started a family. If each couple had 3 children this lost generation could have brought in another 2,214,450 taxpayers into New York City. Adding them to their parent’s generation and assuming a median family income of $53,046 (an older generation established in their career earning more and a younger generation just starting their career earning less) brings the total lost economic activity for these two generations of possible New Yorkers to $195,779,524,500. And lost tax revenue for the state of $22,906,204,367. So the number of abortions is having a direct impact on the economy. And tax revenue. Making it necessary to cut guns to pay for more butter. Whereas if these taxpayers were born we could have both our guns and butter. And live in a world made safe by the most powerful military in the world. Peace through strength. The Ronald Reagan way. And not a world where our enemies are constantly testing our resolve. The Jimmy Carter and President Obama way.
Tags: abortion, butter, defense, defense spending, Democrat, entitlement, entitlement reform, federal, guns, Health Care, high tax rates, New York, New York City, New York State, Obama administration, pension, public sector, tax burden, tax rates, tax revenue, taxes, taxpayer, welfare state
When Children get their Allowance their Faces light up as they Think of all that Spending they’ll Do
Parents try to teach their kids to be responsible. And to understand that they are not rock stars. They can’t have “everything all the time.” Because if you can you get bored. And look for new ways to kill that boredom. Like developing a coke habit. (“There were lines on the mirror, lines on her face.” Life in the Fast Lane. The Eagles.) Which is bad. Very, very bad. So this is where a weekly allowance comes in. It teaches kids to be responsible. And to budget their wants. To make choices. If they want more of one thing they learn they have to have less of another. This is economic reality. And the sooner they learn it the better off they will be.
So what does a kid want? Food, candy, games, toys, comic books, going to the movies and consuming a lot of concession food and drinks. And other stuff. What does a parent want? Their kids not to want so much of these things. And not to whine. Especially that. They also want them to learn the importance of saving money. To spend less and save more. So later in life should they lose their job they will have savings to live on while they look for another job. Without having to move back home. So they may give a child an allowance of $100 a week. Telling that child it’s for those things they want. And for putting a little in the bank every week. So they can have some money for later. During a time they really need it. And when the child gets that $100 his face lights up. Thinking of all that spending he’s going to do. While thinking nothing about saving.
The parent watches with proud satisfaction as their child budgets his wants. For 5 weeks he pays for his school lunch. Spends a fixed weekly amount on candy. When he wanted to spend more on games, toys and comic books he cut back spending on movie night. Even not going to the movies at all in Week 4 because he chose instead to buy an expensive game. The parents are happy to see their child live within his budget. But are disappointed that he spent all of his allowance without putting any of it in the bank.
With this Easy Credit he soon realizes that he can have Everything all the Time
Then the parents divorce. The mother remarries. The new stepdad really wants his stepson to like him. While he is bitter about his parents’ divorce. The stepdad keeps the same allowance structure in place. But in a desperate attempt to get him to like him he is more than willing to make advances on his allowance. Loaning money easily. But charging interest. To continue the lesson of responsibility.
With easy credit and wanting more toys the stepson borrows money in Week 2. $10. And buys more games and toys. Paying $1.10 for the allowance advance. Liking the ability to buy more at the toy store he goes back for another loan in Week 3. This time $20. Paying $3.42 in total interest charges at the end of the week. Losing the lesson of living on an allowance he goes back to borrow more. This time $30. Paying $7.10 in total interest. With this easy credit he soon realizes that he can have everything all of the time. And in Week 5 he borrows $40. With his interest on the outstanding balance adding up to $12.28. Which is almost enough to buy his school lunches for a week.
At the end of Week 5 he owes $100 in allowance advances. Which he will have to eventually pay back. Seeing how irresponsible the child got the stepdad refuses future allowance advances. Upset the kid starts whining. A lot. Annoyed the stepdad calls in the loan. He gives the child his $100 weekly allowance. And then takes it back. The child whines more. For he can’t buy anything that week. Not even school lunch. Having to brown-bag it. A peanut butter sandwich and an apple. Making pizza day a living hell. For he has no savings to live on during this difficult time. As he was a spendthrift with his money. Ignoring the sage advice of his parents to save for a rainy day. So he suffers the most painful time of his life. Extreme austerity for a week.
When they can’t reduce Defense Spending anymore they simply Borrow Money to keep Spending
This example is similar to how the federal government works. The taxpayers are the kids. And the stepdad are the politicians in the federal government trying to make taxpayers like them. So they keep voting for them. Only the politicians don’t want the people to learn to be responsible. To budget their wants. To understand that if they want more of one thing that they have to have less of another. No. They want them to believe they can have everything all of the time. If only they vote for them. How can they do this? Unlike a parent the federal government can print money. Making it the best stepdad in the world.
One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the federal government was to provide for a common defense. After winning their Independence they couldn’t get the British to leave our soil. Or prevent the Barbary pirates from capturing our merchant ships and selling our sailors into slavery. The new federal government was to provide a military force to protect Americans. The Founding Fathers wrote this into the Constitution. What they didn’t write into it was all the social spending we see today. Often at the expense of defense spending. The great political debate of how to divvy up spending between defense and the social stuff we see today is the guns vs. butter debate. Where strict constructionists wanting to keep spending per the intent of the Founding Fathers. All guns and no butter. The ‘butter’ being an issue for state governments. While progressives and liberals want all butter and no guns. Because they hate the military. And think they can talk to our enemies and make them like us. Most other people want something in between. As shown by this graph.
If you spend 80% on guns that only leaves 20% for butter. If you spend 50% on guns that leaves 50% for butter. If you only spend 20% on guns that leaves 80% for butter. And so on. Progressives and liberals want to move as far to the left on this graph as possible. Because the farther left they go the more they please their stepchildren. Who become accustomed to all that spending. And show their appreciation by continuing to vote for their stepdad. Of course they can’t reduce defense spending to 0% because there are people out there who hate us and want to hurt us. So when they can’t reduce defense spending anymore they simply borrow money to keep spending. So they can keep spoiling their stepchildren. Whose faces light up when they think about all the spending they are going to do. With the added benefit that they will never have to repay that spending. Or learn economic reality. Until, that is, the government gets so overextended they have to implement a little austerity of their own. Only it won’t last a week like it did for that spoiled child. Instead it will be more like it was in Greece. It will last years. And include some rioting.
Tags: allowance, allowance advance, austerity, budget, butter, child, defense spending, easy credit, economic reality, everything all the time, federal government, Founding Fathers, guns, guns vs. butter, interest, kids, parents, politicians, responsible, saving money, taxpayers, weekly allowance