those politicians who vote to give our money to foreign nations should be removed asap by any means necessary
they are no less that traitors On Jul 25, 7:58 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > U.S. Taxpayers Finance Taliban“A year-long military-led investigation has > concluded that U.S. taxpayer money has been indirectly funneled to the > Taliban under a $2.16 billion transportation contract that the United States > has funded in part to promote Afghan businesses.” (Washington Post)They can’t > keep track of what they spend now.Political AccountingThere Are Human Costs > to Every Government SnafuJames Bovard > September 1999 • Volume: 49 • Issue: 9 • > Why does the federal government, according to its own auditors, squander tens > of billions of tax dollars year after year? Attempts to understand the > actions of politicians and bureaucrats on the basis of private-sector > decision-making are doomed to failure. Efforts to “fix” government by ending > specific boondoggles are quixotic crusades. Government will continue to be > profoundly wasteful because that is how politicians maximize their powera > subject that interests politicians far more than do General Accounting Office > reports. > “Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder > respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind,” observed > George Orwell.[1]Ruth Grant wrote that “hypocrisy and politics are > inextricably connected on account of the peculiar character of political > relationships.”[2]Since government is coercion, politics is largely the > exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion. > The benevolence of government rarely transcends the venality of politics. > Paternalism seeks to generate mass happiness by forcibly sacrificing as many > people and groups as necessary to the Greater Good. And who defines the > Greater Good? The same people who benefit from maximizing the sacrifices. > The amount of power a politician can seize over other people is inversely > related to the politician’s honesty. If the politician openly tells people > how much more coercive power he seeks and how he intends to use it, there > will likely be strong opposition to the expansion of government. Politicians > rarely wish to admit that they are pursuing a larger “market share” in the > life of the average citizen. Because politicians and government officials > often seek more power than they publicly admit, many, if not most, of their > analyses of government policies are skewed.The Social Security ModelIf a > politician camouflages his plans, people may fail to resist the increased > power until it is too late. This is the thumbnail history of Social Security, > a program that illustrates the natural combination of paternalism and > political fraud. As the Brookings Institution’s Martha Derthick observed, “In > the mythic construction begun in 1935 and elaborated thereafter on the basis > of the payroll tax, Social Security was a vast enterprise of self-help in > which government participation was almost incidental.”[3]The Social Security > Administration for decades told people that their payroll taxes were being > held for each citizen in individual accounts; in reality, as soon as the > money came in, politicians found ways to spend it.[4]Social Security > Commissioner Stanford Ross, after he announced his resignation, conceded in > 1979 that “the mythology of Social Security contributed greatly to its > success. . . . Strictly speaking, the system was never intended to return to > individuals what they paid.”[5]Ross said that Americans should forget the > “myth” that Social Security is a pension plan and accept it as a tax on > workers to provide for the “vulnerable of our society.” But Senator Daniel > Patrick Moynihan of New York accurately characterized Social Security taxes > as “outright thievery” from young working people.[6]American citizens now > shoulder over $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities.[7]The General Accounting > Office issued the first comprehensive report on government assets and > liabilities in 1998and curiously left Social Security obligations out of the > liability column. ANew York Timesarticle noted,A footnote in a draft portion > of the report released Monday notes that after 2029, the Social Security > trust fund will be “totally exhausted” and “current tax income will be > sufficient to pay approximately 75 percent of the benefits due.” But that is > not really a liability, the administration’s accounting experts explained > Monday, because technically the government owes the money to itself, not the > pensioners, and because Congress is free to change the amount paid Social > Security recipients. After thinking about the political implications of that > statement, however, more politically sensitive administration officials > called reporters late Monday to stress that the government did not really > have plans to cut back on Social Security payments. “It’s an accounting > device,” one official said. “That’s all it is.”[8]If the defenders of Social > Security insist that the fraud was justified because otherwise the American > people would not have accepted the coercive redistribution scheme, the > question arises: What future limits should there be on government’s > prerogative to deceive the people? If Social Security is an acceptable fraud, > what would government have to do before it was considered to have gone too > far? Social Security is a perfect symbol of political generosity: it robs > scores of millions of young people, it halves the national savings rate, and > thereby sabotages investment and productivity increases,[9] and it maximizes > bureaucratic and political discretion over people’s fortunes. If the average > worker had a dollar for every time a congressman lied about Social Security, > his retirement would be safe. There is no “Honesty in Intervention Act” > governing new laws or political action. Current taxpayers are still paying > for the lies that politicians told to get re-elected in 1936, 1938, 1940, ad > nauseam. The fact that politicians replace old lies with new lies does not > reduce the burden on citizens of laws that were enacted on false pretenses > generations ago.Business Accounting versus Government AccountingPaternalism > will always be based on political accounting, which is practically the > opposite of private accounting. Businesses prosper by reducing costs, while > politicians prosper by denying that costs exist. For politicians, it is more > important that spending forecasts be popular than accurate. The more that > politicians and bureaucrats underestimate the cost of their favored policies, > the easier it becomes to hustle those policies to voters and other > legislators. Medicareone of the largest expansions of government power since > the New Dealsteamrolled through Congress in 1965 in part because of a > spending forecast that made the expansion of handouts seem easily affordable. > By 1990, however, Medicare was costing almost ten times more per year than > the 1965 forecast had predicted it would cost.[10]The political concept of > waste is almost diametrically opposed to the economic concept of waste. In > economics if an activity produces something that other people value, it can > be successful; in politics if a program garners votes, campaign > contributions, or power, it is successful. Government programs are often > effectively designed to waste money because politicians benefit from an > inefficient, spendthrift program as much as or more than they would benefit > from an efficient, well-targeted program. Congressmen brag about the amount > of federal money spent in their districts, not about whether audit reports > found minimal fraud. > Political accounting means that government leaders will be ignorant or misled > or dishonest about the true cost of policies they impose. The GAO’s financial > report concluded: “Because of the government’s serious systems, > record-keeping, documentation, and control deficiencies, amounts reported in > the consolidated financial statements and related notes do not provide a > reliable source of information for decision-making by the government or the > public.”[11] GAO found that “significant financial systems weaknesses, > problems with fundamental record keeping, incomplete documentation, and weak > internal controls . . . prevent the government from accurately reporting a > large portion of its assets, liabilities, and costs.”[12] Senator Fred > Thompson of Tennessee declared, “We are spending almost $2 trillion a year > and managing a $850 billion loan portfolio based on erroneous or non-existent > information. It means basically that we don’t know what the government’s > assets are, we don’t know what the government’s liabilities are, we don’t > know what it costs to run government.”[13] > After the audit was released, a senior Clinton administration official told > the Associated Press: “This is an old closet that we haven’t cleaned out in > 200 years.”[14] If politicians are going to have the closet cleaned out only > once every couple centuries, maybe they have no right to control the house. A > report that should have been proof of the political class’s incompetence > instead merely evokes another round of promises to try harder next time.Cost > Is No ObjectPaternalism presumes that government agencies judiciously weigh > costs and benefits before extending their power. However, many bureaucracies > have little or no curiosity about the impact of agency actions on private > citizens. The House Commerce Committee surveyed federal agencies and > concluded in a 1997 report, “Where costs [of regulation to private companies] > are addressed, they represent only the smallest and most insignificant > portion of total costs. . . . With little or no documentation on the costs of > regulation, agencies have no basis to judge whether any possible benefits > from a new regulation would outweigh the possible costs of the > regulation.”[15]Because government agencies do not have to pay for the costs > they impose, they have no incentive to track the burdens. The committee > warned that “federal agencies may inadvertently be exposing our Nation to > incalculable economic harms.”[16] The only way such government ignorance > could not be harmful is if it were true that government dictates are always > superior to private decisions. > Efforts to evaluate government programs by private accounting standards are > always contrary to how government agencies gauge their own successes. > Government agencies measure their achievements by how much they prohibit; > private companies gauge their accomplishments by how much they produce. > Government bureaucracies brag about the number of fines they have imposed; > private companies brag about the number of inventions they have created. > Government bureaucrats pride themselves on forcing private citizens to obey > orders; private companies pride themselves on discovering ways that help each > person find his own path. > Governments do not squander money in a vacuum. The more of an economy that is > subject to political command and control, the greater the opportunities and > prosperity forgone. Wasteful government spending crowds out productive > private investment; as a result, the entire society becomes increasingly > impoverished compared to what people could have achieved. > The supposed benefits of the tradeoff between freedom and political control > is based almost entirely on the bogus premise that politicians will provide > more welfare (after seizing increased power over everyone else) than private > citizens can generate through their voluntary agreements and hard work. A > 1998 report by economist James Gwartney and colleagues for the congressional > Joint Economic Committee found that since 1960, average government > expenditures for the 23 major industrial countries had risen from 27 percent > of GDP to 48 percent of GDP in 1996while the average economic growth rate > “fell from 5.5% in the 1960s to 1.9% in the 1990s.” Gwartney observed: “While > growth has declined in all [23] countries, those countries with the least > growth of government have suffered the least.”[17] Gwartney concluded: “If > government expenditures as a share of GDP in the United States had remained > at their 1960 level, real GDP in 1996 would have been $9.16 trillion instead > of $7.64 trillion, and the average income for a family of four would have > been $23,440 higher.”Squandering LivesThe failure of a government policy does > not merely reduce the number of bureaucrats who receive “outstanding > achievement” job evaluations. Governments cannot waste tax dollars without > squandering part of the lives of the people who earned those dollars. There > are human costs to every government snafu. A billion tax dollars wasted > pre-empts 10,000 families from buying starter homes, or pre-empts 100,000 > people from buying bottom-of-the-line new cars, or pre-empts a million people > from taking a summer vacation, or pre-empts citizens from buying 40 million > new books or 80 million cases of beer. > The value of liberty and personal independence is almost never factored into > the calculus of paternalism. Social scientists, politicians, and bureaucrats > consider the expected benefits of any proposed new rule and ignore the effect > of its forcible imposition. Every government program, every government > intervention, every government penalty carries a hidden cost of pre-emption. > The fact that people prefer to live as they choose and not as others command > never shows up on intellectual radar screens. If the costs do not show up in > the official government budget, they do not officially exist. Any government > cost-benefit analysis of a proposed new rule or regulation that disregards > the value of individual freedom implicitly assumes that private freedom is a > good at the disposal of the political class. > Since most politicianssimply by their career choiceindicate a desire for > power, any measure that increases power will be considered a success. If a > policy increases the number of people beholden to them, then it is good as an > end in itself. The ultimate conflict of interest that subverts paternalism is > that government officials want power and citizens want freedom. > There is no reason to expect contemporary Leviathans to become significantly > more efficient in the future. The only way to fix most government programs is > to repeal the underlying law and abolish the government agency. Anything less > will be little more than a future full-employment program for investigative > journalists.NotesGeorge Orwell, The Orwell Reader (New York: Harcourt Brace, > 1956), p. 366.Ruth W. Grant, Hypocrisy and Integrity (Chicago: University of > Chicago Press, 1997), p. 2.Martha Derthick, Policymaking for Social Security > (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1979), p. 232.Two classic books on this > topic are Dillard Stokes, Social SecurityFact and Fancy (Chicago: Henry > Regnery, 1956) and Abraham Ellis, The Social Security Fraud > (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1996 > [1971]).“Outgoing Social Security Head Assails ‘Myths’ of System and Says It > Favors the Poor,” New York Times, December 2, 1979.Pat Wechsler, “Will Social > Security Be There for You?” Newsday, January 14, 1990.Daniel J. Mitchell and > Gareth G. Davis, “Social Security Trust Fund Report Shows Need for Reform,” > Heritage Foundation Backgrounder#1176, May 4, 1998.David Sanger, “Glitches > Galore Pop Up in Full Audit of Government,” New York Times, March 31, > 1998.Martin Feldstein, “Economics: His Defense,” New York Times, October 5, > 1980.Jake Hansen, “Medicare’s Dire Outlook,” Washington Times, June 3, > 1995.Editorial, “What the GAO Foundor Didn’tFind,” Washington Times, April 3, > 1998.James Glassman, “No-Account Government,” Washington Post, April 21, > 1998.“What the GAO Found orDidn’t Find.”“First Government Audit Completed,” > Associated Press, March 30, 1998.House Commerce Committee, Survey of Federal > Agencies on Costs of Federal Regulations, House Report 97-H-272-1, January > 1997.Ibid.“On average, government expenditures in 1995 consumed only 20% of > GDP in the five economies with the most rapid real economic growth rates > during 1980–95: Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. In > these countries, the size of government in 1995 was virtually the same as in > 1975.” James Gwartney, “Less Government, More Growth,” Wall Street Journal, > April 10, 1998.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/political-accounting/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
