creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
William Murchison
William Murchison
22 May 2012
Do You Care? I Don't

All the Facebook tabulation of recent days — whatever it may have meant to Mark Zuckerberg and his … Read More.

15 May 2012
Same-Sex Politics

So how did "same-sex marriage" get to be a political issue in the first place — the kind of … Read More.

8 May 2012
The Truth When It Hurts

What Barack Obama has going for him in 2012 is, well, put it this way: human nature. Witness the French. … Read More.

Gov. Perry and the Ponzi Scheme

Share Comment

So much for the spirit of we're-all-in-it-together, which prevailed, more or less, at the 9/11 commemorations.

The next day, President Barack Obama showed up in the White House Rose Garden to propose financing his presidential comeback by picking the pockets of his opponents.

The president said some $400 billion to finance the tax cuts he wants should come from limiting itemized deductions enjoyed by the filthy rich, as he seems to define them: families earning more than $250,000 a year, not to mention those perennial favorites in the Obama lexicon, oil companies, hedge funds and owners of corporate jets.

The liberal principle of creating wealth by transferring it to others remains intact — reminding us why liberal administrations rarely create wealth. They enact tax and spending policies that take up Peter's time and energy by devising ways of minimizing the conveyance of his money to Paul.

The president, meanwhile, laid some of his deep economic analysis on us: "We've got an economy that's full of uncertainties now."

Gee, you reckon? Like the uncertainty pertaining to the issue of when the federal government will realize and address the magnitude of the obstacles its policies pose to economic growth?

Not for a while, it seems. Companies store up the cash — estimated at $1- to $2-trillion — they have earned while awaiting the signal that it's safe once more to risk and invest. Obama's continued posturing about the supposed immunity of "the rich" is evidence that, no, it's not yet safe to back up an idea with cash.

If money brings out the worst, as well as, occasionally, the best, in many people, Washington, D.C.'s, great treasure trove of taxpayer money (now representing a quarter of the economy) is a case study in moral ruination. The capital's sense of entitlement to our money is endless.

Take Social Security, which Gov. Rick Perry called "a Ponzi scheme" — meaning it bets on the come, paying present beneficiaries with the earnings of future ones, whom it proposes to support with proceeds from even more remote beneficiaries.

Perry got in trouble with commentators, including conservative ones, for denigrating a retirement system on which many Americans profoundly rely. When you get down to it, the rhetorical immunity Social Security enjoys in political debates is evidence that the wealth transfer system, as expounded by Obama, has a place, if a controversial one, in many hearts. Obama can get by — to an extent — with enjoining "the rich" to fork over to "the poor" because the idea of so acting has a pedigree going back at least to the Depression. That the idea might be inefficient rarely enters the minds of its advocates.

Take Social Security, once more, again identified as a Ponzi scheme by the Keynesian economist Paul Samuelson and other non-conservatives (Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online obliges us with the chronology.) Under Social Security, you take from those who have — present-day workers — and give to those who don't have because the government took from them 30 and 40 years earlier.

Today, the system, we shouldn't be greatly surprised to hear, is running out of money. Too few new Americans are coming on the scene, thanks to life choices such as abortion. Nor conspicuously, can the economy support as many workers as we need to pay all those now retired, or soon to retire. At such a juncture, the authorities caught up with Bernie Madoff. Which is no problem when it comes to Social Security, in that the authorities themselves are running this snatch-and-hand-over scheme. Who's going to stop the authorities? The voters? Not until enough of them understand what's gone wrong here.

Perry's description of Social Security may not have been artful, politically speaking, but it does get us talking, which is what, we as a nation, are reluctant to do when it comes to the economic principles that we live by. That's what we need now — talk and more talk.

William Murchison, author and commentator, writes from Dallas. To find out more about William Murchison, and to see features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.Creators.com.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS 2011


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Tolday's Social Security recipients consider themselves "entitled" because they have been paying into it their entire working lives. Most do not understand that what they paid in is 1)less than they receive, 2) eroded by inflation over the years, 3) not sitting in a "trust fund" somewhere waiting for them. The debate now is based on politics; what would happen if an objective, truthful anaysis of the system were made the basis of the discussion? Unfortunately, probably not believed.
Comment: #1
Posted by: partsmom
Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:13 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
William Murchison
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

26 Apr 2011 The Filthy Rich

15 Dec 2009 A Kind Word for King George

1 Mar 2010 'The Public be Damned'