Our self-indulgence spells fiscal folly

We are Americans, and we want the best. Now! Instant gratification has become the American ethos. In roughly three generations, American society has been transformed from a nation of penny-pinchers, scrimpers and savers to a nation of consumption-addicted spendthrifts oblivious to tomorrow. Despite the second-highest per capita income in the world, we save next to nothing. As late as the mid-1980s, the savings rate regularly exceeded 10 percent.

Once upon a time, families actually saved to purchase a home. Young people saved money from their summer jobs to purchase a car. People even saved to prepare for unforeseen trouble or opportunity — "a rainy day."

Forgoing spending to save for something important taught crucial disciplines of delayed gratification and prudent spending. After several years of sacrificing certain comforts or pleasures, we are much more diligent to make certain that what we buy will last, to take care of that purchase, and to understand contracts before signing them.

That personal stake is absent from purchases that require little more than a promise to make future payments. When we have no skin in the game, it seems we have nothing to lose. As a result, Americans have amassed $2.5 trillion in household debt — more than $23,000 per household.

It's no wonder that we transfer that same instant gratification ethos to government. When we the people fail to practice self-discipline at home, we cannot possibly be serious about fiscal restraint in government.

Politicians of all stripes use our shortsightedness to their advantage. With rare exceptions, the populace doesn't embrace candidates who call for tough choices. That's why elections are typically won by the candidate who tells the most people what they want to hear.

For the last 30 years, high school students have learned virtually nothing about the proper limits of government, although they may hear that government should "stay out of your bedroom," which facilitates more instant gratification.

Nearly 200 years ago, Frederic Bastiat wrote: "Government is the great fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

It used to be that politicians sought to ingratiate themselves to the masses by vowing to tax "the rich." By now, most voters are savvy enough to realize that "rich" means everyone with a job and a pulse.

So candidates now promise more government goodies – health care and mortgage bailouts – at the expense of our children and grandchildren. They won't say it that plainly because we wouldn't fall for it if they did. But that's exactly what is happening.

When Congress and President Bush rushed to pass their popgun economic "stimulus" package, they increased the current year's deficit by more than 150 percent and charged another $152 billion to future generations.

The federal debt is more than $5 trillion — $48,359 per household. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. We owe another $5 trillion to federal employees and veterans for health care and retirement benefits.

However, the cost of retirement and health care programs for the general public really shafts our children and grandchildren. The unfunded cost of providing Social Security and Medicare benefits to everyone alive today is more than $45 trillion. That's not the total cost; it's the cost that cannot be covered by existing revenues.

The board of trustees of these two programs says the promises we've made to ourselves "are not sustainable under current financing arrangements." Social Security's existing surpluses will "turn into rapidly growing deficits as the baby boom generation retires."

"Medicare's financial status is even worse," the trustees warn. That should make any clear-thinking American recognize the sheer foolishness of creating a new health care entitlement for everyone.

Too many Americans, whipped into a frenzy by groups like AARP, prefer to sentence our children or grandchildren to stratospheric tax rates than to consider simply slowing the growth of future benefits. Without changes, government will grow from an historic cost of about 18 percent of GDP to 30 percent in just 22 years. In some 40 years, spending will consume 50 percent of GDP — more even than during World War II.

Our decisions today determine if we will saddle our children and grandchildren with an unrestrained government that drains the economy and makes the dollar virtually worthless.

If we hope to secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity, we must force our leaders to confront the future responsibly and aggressively. Most of us did not endure the Great Depression nor any of our country's most demanding tests. However, we face a moment of truth that is just as crucial to our nation's future.

It would be tragic if we who have been asked to do so little fail even this test.

Terror apologist woos Denver GOP

A one-issue agitator preoccupied with demonizing Israel and making excuses for Hamas is odd candidate material for Denver Republicans in the race to succeed Andrew Romanoff, writes Joshua Sharf at PoliticsWest.com. I agree with Sharf's dim view of the extremist Rima Barakat Sinclair, and we at Backbone America will do all we can to prevent her from securing the GOP nomination provisionally bestowed at a March 1 party assembly.

Obama's pastor parrots Ward Churchill

It's too late for Barack Obama to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor of 20 years, now that Wright's pattern of radicalism and rage from the pulpit has finally gained mainstream media attention. Politically, the damage is done for Barack, no matter what he says or does at this late hour. The only remaining questions are how aggressively Clinton and her allies will use the (literally) damning quotes against Obama, and -- if he still manages to get the nomination -- how aggressively McCain and his allies will use them in the fall. As more and more of the Wright stuff comes to light, one striking thing is how closely the pastor's blame-America rhetoric after 9/11 paralleled that of disgraced University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. Remember that on September 12, 2001, Churchill published a scathing essay sympathizing with the World Trade Center attackers, entitled "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." He started by citing Malcolm X's comment that President Kennedy's assassination was just a matter of chickens coming home to roost, and then said jauntily that "a few more chickens... came home to roost in a very big way" when the Twin Towers and Pentagon were attacked.

The Associated Press, coming very late to the current controversy over Jeremiah Wright, finally got around to quoting him this weekend (see Rocky Mountain News, March 15) as having said in a sermon on the Sunday after 9/11: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

It matters not whether Wright's echo of Churchill was witting or unwitting. Subconsciously at least, the two were both using the Malcolm X talking points in a defiant fashion directly contrary to mainstream American opinion and feeling at a time of national crisis.

Does the Democratic Party really want its 2008 nominee lugging the heavy, hateful baggage of Malcolm X, Ward Churchill, and Jeremiah Wright? And if Dems decide that's okay, how will voters in the home of the brave feel about entrusting the presidency to a man who keeps such disreputable intellectual company?

Note: Ronald Kessler in yesterday's Wall Street Journal had more on Obama and the minister, none of it pretty.

No holiday from choosing

Some conservative Republicans are still grumpy about the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. “I don't want to have to choose between the lesser of two evils” is the oft-spoken reason for not choosing at all. The irony is, of course, that picking between bad and worse or between okay and marginally better is what people do every day. In this life, we rarely get to choose between the best and the worst. The choice isn’t between walking ten miles to work or taking the Rolls. It’s between sitting in traffic in a car, taking the bus or not going to work at all. Life is about assessing the costs and benefits and selecting the best option from imperfect alternatives. In the case of this election, there isn’t going to be a Ronald Reagan versus Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama match-up. It’s going to be John McCain versus the Democrat contender. Let’s be honest, leaving the line blank or casting a vote for an “ideal” third party candidate is in fact a vote for the Democrat. A better choice is the rational one – weigh the virtues and weaknesses of the viable candidates and vote. Just as in everyday life, the absence of the ideal does not diminish the importance of choosing wisely.

There are significant differences between the candidates. McCain has a mixed and in some cases an outright poor record on such policies as taxes, border security, free speech, and other issues. McCain is a lot like the big-government Republican who sits in the White House today.

However, whereas McCain’s record is mottled, Senators Obama and Clinton’s are perfectly abysmal. They support tax increases, socialized medicine, and super-sized federal spending. When the time comes, they will nominate Supreme Court justices who promote this agenda.

While it is reprehensible that McCain voted for taxpayer funding of lethal stem cell research, Clinton and Obama have voted against restrictions on late term abortions, against the confirmation of pro-life Supreme Court justices, and for taxpayer funding of lethal stem cell research. In short, their election would bring no hope for the country’s most vulnerable.

For some, this contrast is not sufficient to vote for McCain. It would not be the first time that a defection of a Republican bloc brought about the election of a Democrat. A recent column by Tony Blankley tells how the refusal of liberal Republicans to support Barry Goldwater helped put Lyndon Baines Johnson in the White House. Some will argue that living in the wilderness for decades helped purify the party. Whatever truth may exist in that sentiment, it is vastly overshadowed by the impact of LBJ’s presidency.

What Great Society or War on Poverty program have Republicans managed to dismantle? The National Endowment for the Arts? Public television? Head Start? Job Corps? Bilingual education programs? Health care entitlements? The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (now known as the No Child Left Behind Act)? That would be none of the above. LBJ’s programs not only survived the Reagan Presidency and the Republican revolution of 1994, they’ve grown beyond LBJ’s wildest dreams. Immortal and virtually unassailable, these programs have done more than bust the budget; they have secured a sense of entitlement among a great many Americans. When natural disaster hits or the economy slows, Americans look to Washington rather than to themselves, their fellow countrymen or local government.

Republicans do not have the luxury of taking a holiday from public life to work on their principles, pull together and find a true heir to Reagan. There is a choice to be made this November and the greater evil is doing nothing.

Dem pickup of Hastert seat an omen?

On Saturday, Republicans lost what was once thought of as safe congressional seat in a suburb of Chicago. It is one thing to lose a congressional seat, especially now, but this seat is particularly significant because it was held by former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert--a seat he held for over 20 years. Barack Obama, who hails from Illinois, campaigned intensely for the Democratic Congressman-elect, Bill Foster who narrowly defeated Republican Jim Oberweis. This marks one of two victories on Saturday for Obama who also soundly won in the Wyoming caucuses for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

This Democratic victory is already being painted as a precursor of things to come in November for Republicans, but let's not be too hasty. In 2004, former Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle lost his seat in a hotly contested election to Republican John Thune- a race many Republicans thought to be a sign of things to come. Just two years later in 2006, Democrats garnered the majority in both Houses of Congress.

It just goes to show that American voters are paying attention to candidates and what they are saying. Republicans can win in November, they just need to say the right things--and then act on them. Most Americans, much like the base of the Republican party, want to hear about limited government, lower taxes, and security.

Saturday was just the opening fight. The main event is in November. And don't be surprised if we see this Illinois Congressional seat change hands again later this year. Saturday's contest was for filling the remainder of Hastert's term which ends at the end of 2008, leaving Foster and Oberweis scheduled a rematch in November.