Must read for the cut waste crowd:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...snotthemitsyou
This applies to the Alberta budget discussion as well.
Quote:
The story is similar when looking at discretionary programmes—if there is a pure "entitlement society", it is small and poorly funded.
There is a reason politicians often do not specify which spending cuts they're talking about in budget negotiations: the popular ones (see cuts to foreign aid) don't add up. And, in general, Americans do like the programmes that primarily drive the country's fiscal imbalances—notably Social Security (20% of the budget) and Medicare (21%, taken with Medicaid and CHIP). Most of us do or will (hopefully) benefit from those programmes. That leaves us with the uncomfortable reality that we, not the jobless moochers, are the problem.
Greg Mankiw, an economist and former advisor to Mitt Romney, made clear the challenge facing America in a column two weeks ago: "Ultimately, unless we scale back entitlement programs far more than anyone in Washington is now seriously considering, we will have no choice but to increase taxes on a vast majority of Americans." My colleague notes that Jonathan Chait is confident that Americans will choose tax hikes over cuts to their own entitlements. But is that really the calculation most Americans are making? Most are still in denial over their role in America's fiscal drama. And as long as they are able to find convenient scapegoats for the country's fiscal challenges they will oppose the infliction of pain on themselves. Someone needs to tell these people, it's not them, it's you.
|