The 2016 election cycle is underway, and the contrast between the candidates is stark. Some have concentrated on the growing dangers from issues such as America’s unmanageable national debt, excessive taxes, the rise of international terrorism, Russia’s increased aggressiveness, China’s actions in the Pacific, or the challenges arising from illegal immigration.
Others have promised free stuff.
The allure of free stuff is seductive for a voting population suffering from continued long-term unemployment, stagnant wages, increasing prices in many key essentials, and heavy student debt from unjustifiably high college tuition. Politicians promising giveaways, particularly in an era when many in the media are inclined to agree with the practice of more entitlements and disinclined to examine how to pay for them, have a distinct edge. It calls to mind Benjamin Franklin’s warning that “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
A list of the give-away ideas floated by several of the presidential hopefuls includes budget-breakers such as, to take two prominent examples, free college tuition and more subsidized or free health care. They also continue to favor more leniency on illegal immigration, which increases the population dependent on government largess. It’s not just illegal immigration that presents an increased dependency problem. U.S. consulates abroad feature helpful pamphlets on how to apply for benefits upon arrival in America. The United States cannot afford to function as the welfare agency for planet Earth.
Interestingly enough, those advocating for free stuff have not expressed equal concern for the fact that non-entitlement benefits already paid for by workers such as Social Security face bankruptcy, or that America’s military personnel and veterans continue to be underpaid or receive inadequate post-service care.
Prudent voters should ask how candidates promising free stuff intend to pay for their generous plans. The concept of taxing the rich is unconvincing. It would not reduce “inequality,” another idea floated by candidates who favor increased entitlements. A Money.com review noted that “researchers …looked at what would happen if all the extra money raised from the tax hike on the rich were given to America’s poorest. Lower-income families would receive about $2,650 a year, they found. The country would still remain far more unequal than it was in the 1970s.”
John Stossel, writing in Forbes, notes “it’s a fantasy to imagine that raising taxes on the rich will solve our deficit problem. If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.” Add to that fact the reality that increased taxes serves as a disincentive to hire and invest. A shrinking economy does not help pay for increased entitlements. Margaret Thatcher, the late British Prime Minister, perhaps stated the problem most succinctly: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
Through the years, there buy viagra for women have been well known bulimics in the news who’ve died from this problem. You may be eligible to take testosterone which may help in getting easy cheap cialis uk erection. If you are suffering from erectile dysfunction, as most men could think. cheapest viagra from india Commonplace physio medications are practice programmers, nerve preparing strategies, redress of poor carriage, pacing method, trunk segmental preparation and reinforcing of the profound flexor muscles of tadalafil from canada the cervical spine.
Details such as how to pay for giveaway plans fail to get airtime during televised debates, in the breathless press releases of campaigns promising more and greater entitlements, or in reviews by a generally left-leaning media. That lack of specificity tends to assist candidates proposing free stuff, and works to the detriment of candidates who focus on looming threats or fiscal reality.
It’s not just candidates that endure harsh criticism when entitlements are involved. In Maine, reports the Daily Signal, Governor LePage has enforced stricter requirements for food stamps, and has taken considerable press criticism for the effort.
“Since LePage assumed the governorship, Maine has reduced enrollment in the state’s food stamp program by over 58,000; currently… there are 197,000 people on food stamps, down from a high of 255,663 in February 2012…the decline is due to eliminating the waiver of the work requirement previously attached to food stamps, as also witnessed in Kansas. Under the new legislation, recipients would need to work 20 hours per week, volunteer for about an hour a day, or attend a class to receive food stamps past three months.”
Mary Mayhew is the commissioner of Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services, responsible for administering Maine’s food stamp program. She has taken considerable criticism, she notes in a Daily Signal interview. “I can’t stress enough what an attack campaign it has been from the media for four and a half years…Mayhew claims that detractors—who mostly take issue with welfare reforms enacted by Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican, since his election in 2011—have gone so far as to call her ‘Commissioner Evil,’ and her and LePage’s policies a ‘War on the Poor.”
The 24 hour news cycle may be broad, but far too often it is also shallow. Voters enduring America’s weak economy are targeted by candidates who promise free stuff and are confident there will be little follow-up on how to pay for their proposals. On the other hand, candidates with more realistic platforms are seen as miserly and uncaring.
When Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 1940, he famously said “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.” His blunt honesty in the darkest days of World War 2 helped rally his nation to victory. One wonders how an American version of Churchill would fare in a campaign against a candidate who simply offered more free stuff.