|
Musicmystery -> RE: What you DIDN'T vote for... (11/6/2010 9:52:10 AM)
|
What I DON'T do is cut my income at the same time.
Businesses, for example, can't cut themselves to prosperity. Yes, they can boost productivity and help the bottom line for a quarter or two, but without growth and long term plans, without adapting to market realities, no amount of blaming government or the economy will help. Markets change, and smart businesses change with them.
While I'm doing well, I actually DID make changes at home, back in the Bush era when I could see the structural problems coming (especially petroleum and the cost of produce for me personally--I own my home outright). That's when I really got serious about my orchards, vineyards, and gardens. I've invested heavily in time developing new approaches to my work that keeps me home more--and saves money for others too (like any good business person). And I built new structures designed at better insulation, cutting my heating bills by more than half.
But cutting as a permanent solution just doesn't work. Now what, when costs rise further one day? What about necessary repairs--auto, home, grounds, and health, all of which come when they come? That's why I've been an aggressive saver, getting closer and closer to a point where have the capital to live independent of economic swings as much as realistically possible. But I also keep looking at other possibilities, more options, more opportunities. Instead of whining about economic conditions and blaming whichever party I don't like for them, I change with the times. Tight credit suddenly meant that borrowing to further expand the orchard would mean rates higher than I'm willing to pay (I have excellent credit, and interest rates are at historic lows, so the rate hikes are bullshit). So I scaled back plans, dipped into my savings instead a bit, and aggressively retire older debt (at low rates, but I just don't trust these assholes anymore). Meanwhile my retirement savings and timber lots continue to grow. Grow. Not just cut. And my income jumped a bit too--not a lot (4%), but higher than inflation anyway.
And I CAN'T just cut for the sake of cutting. I can't just say "I'm paying less for electricity now." Instead, I would have to actually reduce consumption, AND be willing to reduce it still further when rates rise. That's just not feasible (and already I only pay $70/month). I've never bought cable or a cell phone, and I drive a small, fuel-efficient car. Again, cuts only go so far.
So the "household argument" is inherently flawed, as it's a very partial picture. That's not all.
Some cuts would be costly. To eliminate SS, for instance, means returning to the economic problems we had before we added SS. Same with Medicare/Medicaid. And there's the problem of missing funding. We in fact pay, in full, for our SS benefits (factor in inflation and modest returns), each of us. That the government used the money for something else doesn't mean there's a SS crisis--it means there's a "borrowed and now they want it back" crisis. After all, all those baby boomers had kids, and the population of the U.S. has tripled in my lifetime. Funds are there. The cutting rhetoric, though, ignores the consequences for cutting programs (especially long term programs).
Other cuts are long overdue, but politically protected--yes, absolutely by your darling Republicans as well as Democrats. We have absurdly high military spending, including on things the Pentagon neither needs nor wants, simply because they are made in somebody's district. We support corn like it's manna, even though it's not at all an efficient crop (nor a necessary one), because the corn lobby is huge and powerful (we don't need corn syrup or the many other uses).
And real problems loom. While health care rhetoric is high, we simply can't do nothing, as it's spirally in double digits and has for quite a while. Businesses can't afford the increases, and insurers will drop more and more people. Yes, the current plan is convoluted, but it's something. Republicans want to "replace" it by getting rid of it piece by piece. It's long term insanity--it must be dealt with, by whatever plan, not ignored.
What's happening instead on the Republican side is using half-truths to buy their agenda--bottom line tax cuts, good times or bad, the economy be damned. Sure, Democrats too have theirs, especially on global trade issues, where they are both trying to placate unions and protectionist sentiment while facing the reality of the importance of free trade in a global marketplace (and protectionism in a world of multi-national corporations is just silly---they'd simply produce in friendlier countries).
Bottom line, if you're hoping for fiscal sanity, you're not backing a winning horse. There will be much rhetoric and posturing, followed by appropriations for the things they knew they'd need but didn't want to admit by putting it in the budget--like Bush did repeatedly with war funding.
And nothing about this resembles sanely managing a household.
Or a country for the long term.
|
|
|
|
