In A Family Way
New at Reason: The old balanced-budget saw about getting governments to do what every family has to do never seemed to be of much use; I say, get every family to do what the government does.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Years ago I worked on a research project for a personal finance software project. We did a number of in-home visits, asking a small but well-balanced sample of people to first to tell and then to show us exactly how they managed their finances.
The difference between what they thought they did and what they actually did was pretty startling. I'm not a big fan of the way finances are handled at Federal and State levels, but I can say with at least some authority that most people would go to jail if held to even those minimal standards of accountability.
On the other hand most of us manage to muddle through as, in fact, government tends to do.
Until recently. Speaking of jail, have you taken a look at Bush's budget proposal?
One of the other tidbits I learned on that project was that the average windfall/inheritance is spent within seven years. Bush came to office three years ago with a mammoth surplus...
David Innes
Speaking of the mammoth surplus, if anyone has a credible link to some hard numbers regarding the surplus and subsequent spending of it all I would like to read up on it a bit more.
Seems every time I bring up the massive depletion of the surplus to someone I am told that the 'suplus' never exisited, it was all just accounting tricks by the Clinton administration sorta like the accouting tricks that Enron, MCI, etc.
I believe I even heard Rush, O'Reily and Hannity echo the same sentiments, I never had any info to refute these statements so I couldnt ever make much of a retort.
They weren't surpluses, they were 'projected' surpluses. You know, like I 'project' I'm going to win the Lotto this year, and budget accordingly.
The "surpluses" of the last Clinton years were a mirage, made possible by continuing to raid the Social Security trust fund.
President Bush continues to use the Social Security fund to hide the real size of the deficit. President Bush projects a deficit of $521 Billion next year, which does not count additional funding for the occupation of Iraq. If the federal government were not allowed to raid the Social Security fund, the deficit would be $695 billion, not counting Iraq.
Yes, Doug, that's true. Now, the half of the truth that you don't like to mention.
Clinton's budgets, and those that would have been implemented under President Gore, ran in the black if Social Security were set aside. Discretionary spending, including the military, was less than tax receipts. That was never accomplished under Reagan or old Bush, let alone the current administration.
Yes, setting aside Social Security is a problem. But doing so provides a pretty way to do a lateral comparison. You can't trust Republicans with your money.
You can't trust politicians with your money. In isolation, Republicans will buy tanks and Dems will give cash to their constituents, no doubt to 'stimulate demand'. In an election cycle, Repubs will cut taxes and will still buy tanks, while Dems will escalate the caring to unheard of levels of taxation on people that aren't voting for them.
Recently, Repubs are content to run deficits while Dems are more 'responsible'. Unfortunately, responsibility means raising taxes on people they don't like to fund increased government involvement in every aspect of your life.
It is a shitty choice to have to make.
Social Security is not a burden. The retirement age will be raised and that will be that. The ``hole'' points not to financial ruin but this simple future act. You get to retire for on the average the last (say) ten years of your life, not for however long modern medicine keeps people alive after they reach 65.
If they privatize Social Security, the same thing will happen, but by way of falling returns to investment causing deferral of retirement, as everybody tries to invest at once.
The invariant is that you can't save future services; they have to be produced in the future. The government automatically can't do it (if they tried to save, it would just reduce the money supply, and the Fed would have to offset it, leaving a wash). People can't all do it because you need consumers in order to have producers.
In short, the fallacy of composition means the government can't be like a family. If everybody stands on their toes, everybody can't see better.
What color is the sky in your worl Ron?
*^%#@# typo
Ron,
Except that the beneficiaries of the social security entitlement and free drug program are largest single voting bloc in America. They have demonstrated no hesistation to sacrifice later generations on the altar of free stuff in the past, and I have no reason to believe they would voluntarily elect a reduction in benefits at any point in the future. Rather, drug coverage will not be enough.
The answer will be to tax my arse at 90%, not to reduce benefits.
so the answer is logan's run.
clearly we have no other choice.
I'm not so confident predicting what will happen with the coming Social Security crunch, but your takedown of the family/government analogy is pretty sharp.
Why do people insist on comparing governments to families?
Families, even "debt-free" ones, usually owe money against mortgages three or four times their yearly income, plus a car lien or two in there as well.
The average "debt-free" family owes many times their yearly income in long-term debt.
Tell me again how government economies and family finances have anything to do with each other?
Democratic control of both the White House and the Congress would result in no less exuberant spending spree. It seems that only gridlock will force some measure of frugality upon government; that is the only real option.
"Dithering dickheads of defeatism", heh, heh, heh. You gotta love that.
"Yes, Doug, that's true. Now, the half of the truth that you don't like to mention."
Well, joe, if truth is spin, then I guess I've been enlightened.
EMAIL: nospam@nospampreteen-sex.info
IP: 193.251.169.169
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/21/2004 05:03:34
Gratitude is born in hearts that take time to count up past mercies.