Bill Pruett
We often lose the debate with liberals by letting them define the terms and we are left counterpunching. A case in point is the budget battle brewing in Washington. You know, this is the debate over how much money this generation should steal from future Americans! The liberals have taken the higher ground in the past by getting reasonable people to accept the idea of "discretionary spending." Once we accept this misnomer, spending like drunken sailors seems almost responsible.
The argument goes like this: "Most of the federal budget is spent on entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and also Defense. When you add to this the costs of welfare, unemployment, education, homeland security, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, etc., there is little discretionary spending that Congress can cut."
This is nothing more than a "fig leaf" to hide Congress' unwillingness to dramatically cut spending (or even undramatically cut it!). When the "ox is in the ditch," all spending is discretionary spending. We can choose whether or not we continue to have a government so we can certainly choose whether or not that government can spend money.
All federal spending programs must originate in the House of Representatives. Why? Because the Founding Fathers wanted to keep the purse strings as close to the people as possible. The Democratic Party has controlled the House of Representatives almost unfailingly during the last 80 years of irresponsible spending. The electorate has voted for a change and the Republicans had better get it right this time.
If we talk about "discretionary spending", we miss the elephant in the center of the room. All spending is discretionary spending. We must not start with where we are and try to chip away small amounts here and there. We must start with a zero budget and add only what is absolutely necessary. Our Founding Fathers referred to this as "limited government." We must look at the limited purposes of government and fund it accordingly. We can only do this by starting back at zero. Each department and each agency must justify their existence or they must be eliminated completely. Businesses and households face these kind of choices every day and make the hard decisions. We must demand no less from our elected officials.
The choice is not to eliminate line items but rather departments and agencies. This nation was founded on principles of limited government and freedom of the individual. The individual should be free to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. This is a natural right endowed on us by our Creator. Government should be limited to keep that God-given right intact. If there are no limits on government, there is no freedom for the individual!
The problem is not just a financial one. Far from it! The repercussions will cost our future citizens their freedom. There will be an inevitable moral decline as we continue to spend someone else's money. This will continue our advance down the road from our existing Socialism to Communism. If you think "existing Socialism" is too harsh, name one major industry in this country that is not over-regulated by the Federal government. It would take a Socialist government to effectively nationalize healthcare. Only a Socialist government could presume to tell free citizens how much water can flush in their toilets and what kind of light bulb must be used in their homes.
The question is simply this, "Would we rather waste trillions on our own generation and jeopardize the freedom of our children and grandchildren, or would we rather act responsibly and leave our descendants a great country?" Given that choice, all spending is discretionary and no one is "entitled" to my children's heritage!
