-Caveat Lector-
Beware of These 8 Fallacies in Tonight's Debate
By Harry Browne
Wednesday, October 11, 2000
Tonight George W. Bush and Al Gore square off in their second debate.
They will argue over many things. But underlying their arguments will be many false assumptions. Since the assumptions are wrong, their proposals are meaningless, and you should be forewarned.
Here are 8 such fallacies . . .
The Budget Surplus
Fallacy #1: "There is a budget surplus."
Each candidate will tell you how he plans to use the surplus -- proposing a combination of tax cuts, new spending programs, paying down the national debt, saving Social Security, and so on. But there is no surplus, and so all those plans are meaningless.
Here are the federal budgets for the past ten years:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Federal Budget, 1991-2000
Please click on this link to see the chart: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/20001011_xchbr_brown egraph1.gif< (All figures in this article are taken from the August issue of Economic Indicators, a monthly publication of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The deficits are shrinking, but there still is no surplus. The Social Security receipts are larger than Social Security payments, and the excess is being lent to the general fund to create a phony surplus. Ignored in any discussion of the "surplus" is the fact that the overall federal debt continues to rise year by year.
Neither Al Gore nor George Bush will say "When we have a surplus;" he'll act as though the surplus already exists. So you shouldn't pay any attention to what he plans to do with the surplus.
If either of them really wanted to generate a true budget surplus, he'd propose reductions in government spending. But only a Libertarian President is likely to do that.
Social Security
Fallacy #2: "We are saving Social Security."
Whatever plan Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore offers to make Social Security safe, it's a misrepresentation. You can't save something while you're stealing from it. Since all the excess Social Security receipts are being used to paper over the deficit in the general fund, there's no cash in the Social Security Trust Fund for future payments.
When Social Security payments begin to exceed receipts in a few years, money from the general budget will have to pay off the IOUs held by Social Security. But the politicians will have used up the phony "surplus" with spending increases and tax cuts.
Social Security will be "saved" or reformed only when it's taken completely away from the politicians, and you're allowed to keep the money yourself -- to do with as you think best.
That's why a vote for a Republican or a Democrat is truly a wasted vote. Only Libertarians are proposing that you should be completely free from Social Security.
Welfare Reform
Fallacy #3: "Welfare reform was a great triumph."
Both major parties are trying to take credit for the welfare reform program the Republican Congress passed and the Democratic President approved. They want you to believe that this "reform" has reduced considerably the terrible burden of welfare spending.
But here's what the federal government has spent on welfare over the past ten years:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Welfare spending, 1991-2000
YearWelfare Spending* 1991 170 1992 197 1993 207 1994 214 1995 221 1996 226 1997 231 1998 233 1999 238 2000 253
* In billions of dollars. (All figures in this article are taken from the August issue of Economic Indicators, a monthly publication of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oh yes, you've heard that the number of welfare recipients has declined. But politicians don't stop spending money on a shrinking program. In fact, in many parts of America, federal, state, and local governments are _advertising_ for new welfare recipients.
Welfare must be taken completely out of the hands of the federal government. Otherwise, the politicians will continue to defraud you and take your money.
Tax Cuts
Fallacy #4: "My tax cuts will save you money."
Between the general fund and Social Security, the politicians have budgeted $1.8 trillion in expenditures for the 2000 fiscal year. (The 2001 budget will be even larger.)
Who's going to pay the $1.8 trillion? The Russians? The Martians?
Of course not. You and I and almost every other American will have to cough up $1.8 trillion for that obscene budget.
Unless there is a decrease in spending, any "tax cut" simply rearranges the burden of big government; it doesn't reduce it. "Tax cuts" are a shell game, pure and simple.
Neither candidate is proposing to reduce government spending. Neither one has called for the elimination (or even reduction) of any government program, department, or agency. Quite the contrary, both Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are proposing to increase the size,
