	23 May 2012 Keeping Business Honest Instinctively, we look for people's motives. We need to know whom we can trust and whom we can't. We're … Read More.
	16 May 2012 Making Life Fair When my wife was a liberal, she complained that libertarian reasoning is coldhearted. Since markets produce … Read More.
	9 May 2012 Creating a Risk-Free World A child leaving home alone for the first time takes a risk. So does the entrepreneur who opens a new business.… Read More.

Did Freedom Win?

What a surprise! Everyone predicted a Republican resurgence. Instead, voters shocked pundits by strengthening the Democratic majority in Congress. President Obama called the result ?a resounding confirmation of my legislative achievements.? Democrats quickly introduced legislation to add a public option to Obamacare; a second, larger ?stimulus? bill; a Paycheck Fairness Act; and new card-check and cap-and-trade bills.

OK, I assume that didn?t happen. But it?s tough to come up with a Wednesday morning column. I write this on Election Day. Polls haven?t closed. It might have happened.

Please tell me it didn?t.

This was to be the year of the tea party triumph. As a libertarian, I so want to believe that the tea party marks the beginning a comeback for small government.

But I?m probably deluding myself. I know that big government usually wins. Remember the last time the Republicans took power? They promised fiscal responsibility, and for six of George W. Bush?s eight years, his party controlled Congress. What did we have to show for it?

Federal spending increased by 54 percent. That?s more than any president in the last 50 years. Much more than the 12 percent increase under Bill Clinton, and it even beat the 36 percent increase under big spender Lyndon Johnson. The number of subsidy programs grew 30 percent, and the regulatory budget grew 70 percent. The private sector shrank, while the government sector grew by 1.6 million jobs.

Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress created a prescription drug entitlement, the biggest entitlement expansion since Medicare. At one point, he nearly tripled the Department of Education budget.

Republicans want another chance, but any sensible person would be skeptical. We saw what happened when Republicans got a taste of power, and it wasn?t pretty. Why should we believe it wouldn?t happen again? Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., likely the next chair of the House Education Committee, has already said that he?s not going to abolish the Department of Education.

Republicans anticipated skepticism and tried to address it with the Pledge for America, an echo of the 1994 Contract With America. But the Pledge is modest. It promises no cuts in Medicare, Social Security or the military. That?s where most of the money is.

Those programs account for 60 percent of the budget.

Their reluctance to call for entitlement cuts is politically understandable: Older people vote and don?t like the prospect of Medicare cuts. But taking Medicare off the budget-cutting agenda forsakes one?s credibility as a fiscal hawk. Medicare faces $36 trillion in unfunded promises. Social Security adds $4.3 trillion. As Shikha Dalmia writes in Forbes, ?By 2052, Uncle Sam?s three entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — will consume all federal tax revenues, leaving nothing for government?s core, constitutional functions.?

OK, congressmen and would-be congressmen are just politicians. But the tea party is supposed to be different. It stands for fiscal responsibility, spending cuts and deficit reduction. A New York Times poll found that 92 percent of tea partiers said they would rather have a ?smaller government providing fewer services? than a ?bigger government providing more services.?

That?s encouraging. But when it comes to specifics, the results aren?t as good. The poll found that 62 percent thought ?the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs.? A Bloomberg poll found that most tea partiers ?want more drug benefits for Medicare patients.? And when was the last time you heard tea partiers complaining about the exploding military budget?

Strangely, in other questions, tea partiers did seem willing to accept cuts in domestic entitlement programs if it meant smaller government. The contradictory answers don?t bode well for the time when lobbyists for well-organized special interests mount their passionate attacks against cuts.

You just cannot be committed to cutting government if you would leave two of the costliest programs intact.

It?s exciting to know that by the time you read this, the Republicans will have probably retaken the House. Divided government historically spends less than governments under one-party control. But if the people who most loudly demand smaller government can?t deliver a clear message on the biggest sources of government spending, the fiscal future of the country is in trouble.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at <a href="http://www.johnstossel.com" <http://www.johnstossel.com>>johnstossel.com</a>. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment

John Stossel,

To answer the question you ask in the title, No, freedom did not win. I feel that this election was more about putting the Republicans in office to repeal Obamacare than putting people in office that want fiscal responsibility and greater accountability. Sure, the Republican will devote most of their energy toward repealing Obamacare; that's what most Americans would love to happen anyway. Beyond that, I feel that the Republicans, like the Democrats, will mostly ignore their constituents and lend their ears toward lobbyists and unions. Beside, people in this country care very little about their freedom; they would trade all their freedoms for the illusion of security. I have a theory for all that. Ifeel that people know that with great freedom comes great responsibility. Having great responsibility is hard, so most people want to have their responsibilities taken away so their lives will be easier. The premise would be that the less responsibility one has, the more freedom one has. Needless to say, that way of thinking is very wrong. To have someone take away a responsibility would obligate him/her to take away a freedom in exchange. Most social programs work this way; they give you subsidized housing but you have to either work part-time or have children to qualify. Okay, so much for the rant. Being a 25 year old black Libertarian and witnessing the circus acts of Congress as a whole , all I can say at this point is "Goodbye Capitalism, Hello Socialism!"

Comment: #1
Posted by: Damon Townsend
Fri Nov 12, 2010 5:04 PM

Report this post

I'd like to address this comment: "And when was the last time you heard tea partiers complaining about the exploding military budget?" Remember that the tea partiers want not just a return to limited government per se, they want a return to limited government as defined by the US Constitution. The Constitution contains a clear mandate for the federal government to maintain a standing military, obviously one large enough to defend America's national interests - and while reasonable minds may disagree on what or where our "interests" lie - it's quite arguable that the Constitution authorizes a military that's big enough, strong enough, and sophisticated enough to be deployed to the MidEast in massive numbers for the purposes of squashing terrorism. It is equally arguable that same military belongs in all of the other places it is deployed around the globe - making sure our enemies don't threaten our friends. The US has the world's largest military budget, but that's because it also has big military commitments. Last time I checked, it accounts for perhaps 25% of the overall federal budget, while nearly half goes to education and other programs that are authorized nowhere in the Constitution. Entitlement reform is desperately needed, yes, but there is also some measure of non-defense, discretionary spending in the federal budget that could be cut right away - earmarks, research studies, federal endowments (like that for PBS/NPR or the National Endowment for the Arts, for instance) - dozens or hundreds of other programs that could be axed. That would be a good place to start. As to Medicare/SS, the Republicans need to find their voice and explain to America's seniors that business as usual simply is not an option. I have long suggested that it's time to stop taxing people specifically for these program - pay for them out of the general revenue fund instead - and also stop admitting anyone into them who hasn't already paid into the system. And while we're on the subject, we need a major tax cut for all income levels, rich and poor alike.

Comment: #2
Posted by: Matt
Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:15 AM

Report this post

Already have an account? Log in.