Rights 4 Sale

There is a discussion about whether health care or other benefits provided to individuals by the government are natural human rights or entitlements.  Right or privilege.   It’s a subject that people will probably debate for decades or centuries to come.

Without getting into this part of the discussion, let’s just talk about it from the dollars and cents point of view.

If you look at the federal budget, one thing jumps out.  The combination of mandatory and discretionary spending is more than the revenue causing a deficit.  So, we are already spending more than we make.  If we want to our government to give more, then we have to find a way to get some more money or spend less.

Just borrow the money?  The only problem with that is we pay more interest when the debt goes up.  Interest is part of the mandatory spending.  When interest spending goes up, there is less to spend on other mandatory items, like Social Security or Medicare or less to spend on discretionary items like defense, education, roads or law enforcement.

We could just print the money, but that would cause inflation which would defeat the whole idea of having more.

The only other alternative is raising taxes so there is more revenue.  Every time this approach has been tried, increased taxes lowered productivity or caused inflation.  Current estimates say that personal income taxes would have to be increased to 60% to cover the expected growth in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest spending.  It is doubtful that most people would put up with a 60% rate of income tax.

So, it’s back to square one.  Whether health care is a right or an entitlement, it is really junior to the question of whether we can afford it or not.  If we are going to pay for heath care, then we need to take something out of the existing budget or raise taxes. 

Proponents of the health care plan that is currently in the House and Senate say that we can pay for the new benefits by cutting existing costs.  Government programs have never been successful at lowering costs.  One might ask, if it’s so easy and so fiscally important, then why haven’t we done it already?

Let’s say that the typical person makes $1,000 per paycheck.  The taxes are approximately 20% or $200.  This leaves you $800 for necessary expenses like rent, utilities and food.  If you are lucky, these necessary expenses are less than $800 and you have some discretionary money to spend, invest, give away or save.

If government adds new benefits without reducing spending then they need more from you.  Suppose your fixed expenses are $800, then raising you taxes to $300 means that you need to make more money or reduce your expenses to $700.

So, let’s take it from the top.  As long as the government is taking in more than it spends, then it can spend the surplus on whatever benefits the people think are OK.   But, whenever the government spends more than it takes in, it needs to reduce services or increase revenue.  Translated, if you want more benefits, then you will pay more in taxes or government will have to spend less on some existing benefit.

The example above represents a typical American except that a typical American spends $850, but only brings home $800.  That means that the typical person has to borrow $50 per pay period through the use of a credit card or some kind of line of credit.

In the past, growing spending was obscured and hidden hidden behind a growing economy.  The same is true for individuals.  Growing credit card limits, growing debt or growing equity in real estate hid the fact that people were spending more than they made.

Now that we have an economy that is in recession, home values are decreasing and credit limits have has been reduced.  Meanwhile, federal spending is increasing while federal revenues have decreased.  The result is that there is less money in the federal coffers just like there is less money in your pocket.

Whether health care is a right or an entitlement may be purely an academic subject because there just isn’t enough money to pay for it no matter what it is.

 

 

Everything is evaluated by comparing it to something else.  It’s a good apple or a bad apple, but only compared to some known or standardized theoretical apple.  Is this apple better than that one?  It must be a good apple.  If it’s worse, it must be a bad apple.

There is a line in politics that is little talked about.  But, where you stand in reference to that line helps define whether you are conservative or liberal.

 

 

 

 

The line is simply this:  if you think people can do for themselves you are conservative.   If you think people are stupid or unable to take care of themselves (and need the government to provide for them), you are liberal.

This is the common denominator to most issues. As a liberal, you are likely to support stiff regulation of the financial industry.  As a conservative, you would be likely to support more of a free market approach with fewer regulations.   In this example, the liberal believes that individuals can not fend for themselves and the increase in regulation (along with the increase in government) is well justified.  The conservative believes that the individual is capable of operating without the help of extensive government.  It goes without saying that liberals are not advocating totalitarianism and conservatives are not advocating a complete lack of structure.  There is an optimum level of government and regulation.

Politicians, these days, can speak or promise in one direction, but act in another.  The concept above can help you interpret what they really think.

 

Most discussions about the political spectrum follow a popular concept of identifying positions in reference to the left or to the right.

In modern times, a common way of classifying political parties, positions and ideologies is the left-right label.  We say that someone is a liberal or a conservative meaning left or right, respectively.  In addition, some people lean to the left at times and lean to the right other times.  These people are called centrists and they may also call themselves independents.  Some liberals have been promoting the term progressive to distinguish themselves from traditional democrats.  Still, the underlying dichotomy is left and right.

 

To provide more clarification, it has been popular to add a second dimension with Fascism (authoritarian) and Libertarian as the poles of the dichotomy.  So, you could plot someone by identifying them as left or right and then rate them on their beliefs in economic and social freedom further positioning them on the grid between fascism and libertarianism.

Traditionally, the Left includes social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists while the Right includes conservatives, fascists, reactionaries, monarchists and nationalists.  The classification of capitalism as right-wing or left-wing varies from country to country.

Another way to look at the political spectrum is to imagine it in a vertical plane.  This allows us to track the evolution of a government from a natural state of democracy to the point where it ceases to exist.  Here is the lineup:

 

Republic

Democracy

Socialism – Social Democracy

Fascism

Communism

Anarchism

Below that is nonexistence.

A Republic is a form of government wherein we entrust the running of government to a few elected representatives who vote in our behalf.  Trust is the key word.  We trust that our representatives will faithfully represent us.  There is a basic trust among the population that fellow citizens will act ethically and responsibly.  Republics enjoy relatively wide freedom to pursue personal goals and tyranny in any form is not tolerated.  Government tends to be small.  Communication is wide open in a republic and discourse expressing different points of view is two-way.  People who suffer from poverty and unemployment are supported by their church, family and community.  Opportunity is available to anyone who is willing to be responsible and put in the effort.  The economy is free from interference from outside influences.  Laissez-Faire is common and social order is fixed, but open.   Management controls workers in a benevolent manner.  Law is determined by culture.  People are free to practice or not practice the religion of their choice.  Private property is well protected.

Republic

Democracy

Socialism – Social Democracy

Fascism

Communism

Anarchism

Below that is nonexistence.

In a democracy, there is not as much trust in representatives, so people insist on a more direct participation in government.  Everyone participates in the decisions concerning how the country is run.  People are expected to pull their own weight, but there are social safety nets in place for people who have a difficult time.  Help is government-provided and is widely available to the poor or unemployed.   As a country grows, a certain percentage of the population turns out to be criminal or dishonest and laws are needed to keep people in line.  Law is determined by culture and some ideology.  On a business and personal level, as long as one follows the rules, there is no interference from authorities.  Private property is observed, but the government has the right to take it if it decides the common good would be better served.  Religious practice is unrestricted.

In new democracies, participation is usually high.  In fading democracies, participation evaporates as the democracy dies. 

Republic

Democracy

Socialism – Social Democracy

Fascism

Communism

Anarchism

Below that is nonexistence.

Continuing down the scale, there is less trust in the individual and a belief that more government is needed to control the population.  Government gets bigger and bigger.  More and more control is invested in the government and less and less in the individual.  In a social democracy, there are regulations for many aspects of personal and business life.  Communications is relatively restricted and most popular thinking is set by liberal ideology.  There are many social safety nets to ensure that people have all of the basics of existence like food or health care.  In a social democracy, workers (and unions) have a strong influence over management and are instrumental in determining company direction.

Republic

Democracy

Socialism – Social Democracy

Fascism

Communism

Anarchism

Below that is nonexistence.

In a fascistic society, people still own business and personal property, but the government regulates nearly all aspects of business and personal life.  This is the condition where there is a rule or law for nearly everything.  Anyone who needs welfare support gets it.  Most opportunities are fixed by the government and favor the individual over the business owner.  Laws are driven by socialistic ideology and are designed to support the government while it controls or suppresses the property owner and individual.  There is very little freedom when it comes to speech, press or religion.

Republic

Democracy

Socialism – Social Democracy

Fascism

Communism

Anarchism

Below that is nonexistence.

In a communistic society, the government owns everything and sets the plans for everything business and personal.  Central planning decides who will do what and when and it decides on pricing, salary and benefits.  Communication is very restricted and government usually spies on the population to discovery those who are not loyal (obedient).  People guard their thoughts and opinions.  People in this atmosphere are friendly on the surface, but hostile behind people’s back.  People expect the government to provide every citizen with more than equal opportunity; they expect the government to guarantee every citizen with the same outcome.   There are no real freedoms or personal right and the government is 100% tyrannical in that it can do whatever it wants whenever it wants.

Republic

Democracy

Socialism – Social Democracy

Fascism

Communism

Anarchism

Below that is nonexistence

In a true anarchistic state, there is a wide-spread apathy.  People may not describe themselves as apathetic and may offer justification why things are the way they are.  In anarchy, there is no government and no systems of production, distribution or finance.  There is a kind of false freedom, but without property laws and law and order, there are no protections of any kind. Talk to an anarchist.  They will reveal their apathy – “nothing can be done about it” – and their ideas include the idea that everything will succumb.  Their motto seems to be “Why Bother?”

Below that is non-existence.  Anarchy does not usually last very long.  Just before a country or group dies, there is a period of anarchy.  It may last 10 minutes, 10 hours or 10 days.  If not conquered by a new leadership and a new government erected to replace the old one, the anarchy will deteriorate until the country or city-state ceases to exist. 

Without any kind of negative influence, humans tend to organize themselves in a  somewhat democratic manner.  They tend to find ways to work together.

This is a natural evolution and a deterioration of social order. 

Some feel that people should not be trusted and strong controls should be put into place to keep people under control – for their own good.  Others believe that men are mostly honest and don’t need a lot of government to interfere with their liberty and pursuit of happiness. 

This is the basic and natural starting point of liberal and conservative points of view.  Some people want big government and others want small government, but both points of view are based on a fundamental belief about his fellow man. Senior to opinions about the size of the government, one group feels that people are lacking in some capacity and need a big government to control them.  Others feel most people are honest and productive and the only purpose of government is to provide things the individual can’t (for example national defense, protection of basic rights, regulation of commerce, disaster relief or judicial functions), not impose restrictions and barriers to commerce.

As we move from a republic to a democratic to a socialistic society, we give up more and more freedom.  Increased power is given to the government.  The government has to be increased in size to provide more and more control functions as restrictive laws and increased welfare support services are needed.  Freedom is inversely proportional to government control.  Freedom is also inversely proportional to tyranny.