"The Era of Big Government is Not Over"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogsot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“The Era of Big Government is Not Over”

September 14, 2023

 

“I say again, the era of big government is over.”

                                                                                                                                President William J. Clinton

                                                                                                                                State of the Union Address

                                                                                                                                January 23, 1996

 

“For he on honey-dew hath fed/ And drunk the milk of Paradise;” so ends Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s poem “Kubla Khan.” Xanadu, an extravaganza, was located in Mongolia, north of Beijing. Kublai Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan, was Emperor of China. Xanadu became his first capital, later his summer palace. Khan was the founder of the Yuan Dynasty and ruled China for thirty-four years (1260-1294). 

 

We in the United States have not been so grandiose…yet. However, in Washington there is a sanctimonious belief that all problems can be solved by government, that its bounty has no limits. In the September 12, 2023 issue of The Telegraph (London), Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and Jeremy Warner wrote: “The fiscal scale of Bidenomics is larger than Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s by a wide margin. It is larger than Johnson’s guns and butter in the 1960s, or Reagan’s military rearmament in the 1980s. We are witnessing an extraordinary experiment in U.S. economic policy.” The New Deal was a response to a global depression. Johnson’s Guns and Butter was to fund the Vietnam War and his “Great Society.” Reagan’s rearmament won the Cold War. Bidenomics was to mend the nation’s infrastructure, combat a pandemic that was already being addressed, and to fight inflation, a result of easy money, business closures during the pandemic, and rises in energy prices caused by Mr. Biden’s curtailment of exploration and production.

 

Expanding tentacles of our enlarged administrative state raise questions: How much larger can the federal government grow? White House employment alone, at 524 people, has grown by 27% in the past three years. Is it possible to shrink entitlements, the fastest growing segment of spending? What will be the effect of rising interest rates, which in two or three years will cost a trillion dollars a year? Interest costs are already roughly equal to defense spending. Will defense suffer in an increasingly dangerous world? (At 3.5% of GDP, defense spending is about half of what it was in 1982.) 

 

The numbers are sobering. U.S. GDP is estimated to be $27 trillion in 2023. Total federal debt for this year is estimated to be $32 trillion, or 118.5% of GDP. In addition, state and local debt were $2.1 trillion in 2022. To put those number is in perspective, the ratio of federal debt to GDP at the end of World War II was 117.5 percent. That ratio declined for several years, troughing in 1981 at 32.5%. Fitch Ratings recently lowered their rating on U.S debt from AAA to AA+, saying that “the ratio of debt interest to tax revenue will reach 10% by 2025, the level where it starts to create a snowball effect.” 

 

Led by the credit crisis of 2008 and the pandemic of 2020, the recent rise in debt has been a bi-partisan effort, first peaking above 100% in 2013. As Rahm Emanuel famously declared, “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Neither the credit crisis nor the pandemic were wasted. A recent editorial in The Washington Postbegan: “In 2023 – with the economy humming – the federal deficit is spiking to $2 trillion, according to calculations from the Committee for a Responsible Budget.” Setting aside whether 2.1% GDP growth is actually “humming,” it is good to know the Left is taking notice.

 

When we look at federal expenditures, as a percent of GDP, they came down sharply after World War II, though never approached the levels of pre-World War II. During three War years (1942-1944) federal outlays exceeded 40% of GDP. For the next seventy-five years, expenditures remained in the general range of mid-teens to 20% of GDP, rising during recessions and falling during periods of economic growth, but inching toward the higher end of the range as time went by. That changed in 2020 when the response to COVID was to shut down the economy. Since, federal expenditures, as a percent of GDP, have consistently been above 24% of GDP. Entitlement spending, which has ratcheted up each year, now approaches 66% of total government spending. What will happen to the needs of defense, education, etc.? Will taxes be raised? Will benefits be cut? Will we be able to pay interest on the debt? Will the economy slow further?

 

The catalyst that has caught everyone’s attention is the rise in interest rates, compounded by the rise in debt. Fed Funds began 2008 at 4.25% and ended the year at 0.25 percent. They stayed at the level for the next twenty-seven quarters, despite positive – though anemic – GDP growth. The fact that the Dow Jones Industrial Averages rose 70% during those six years lends credence to the claim that low interest rates benefit asset holders and help to widen the wealth gap. Today, the rate on Fed Funds is 5.5 percent, having been raised to combat inflation. Will the Fed, again, be asked to accommodate ballooning debt?

 

No one would disagree that a healthy and growing private sector is necessary for an income-consuming government, yet as the private sector shrinks relative to the public sector the job becomes more difficult. Since 2000, and apart from two years during the George W. Bush Administration (2004 and 2005) and the bounce-back year of 2021 from COVID, U.S. GDP growth has consistently been under three percent. More government spending, higher taxes and increased regulation are brakes on economic growth. Is the current unemployment rate of 3.8% telling us that the economy is maxed out at 2.3 percent? We better hope not.

 

In contrast with today and apart from six years (1981, 1982, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1995), the twenty years between 1981 and 2000, saw economic growth range between 3.46% and 4.79 percent. While wealth inequality did increase – in part due to the use of options in executive compensation – the incoming tide lifted all boats. Unemployment remained low and the S&P 500 rose from 136.34 to 1,320.28. Perhaps gaps in wealth and incomes will narrow as the tide ebbs, but what will that do for standards of living?

 

In 1986 at an August 12th press conference, President Reagan said: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.’” Ten years later, in his State of the Union, President Clinton confirmed the sentiment. But the words must be placed in perspective. Government is necessary. Without it we would have anarchy. Government does much to help individuals, the elderly, the sick, and those no longer able to care for themselves. We need it to keep civil order, for education, and to protect us from enemies, at home and abroad. We need it to facilitate trade and to keep open sea lanes. We live in a nation of laws, under a representative government. We could no more survive without government than we could survive without air. But there are limits to what we can afford. A limited government is what we were given. We cannot smother free market capitalism that has enriched our lives. 

 

We need serious people to consider how big government can grow before we are impaled on a petard of our own making. We have only to look at Western Europe’s global decline to see our possible future. In an 1867 address at the University of St. Andrews, John Stuart Mill said: “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” Xanadu has not been built in the United States, but we live in an era of big government. We need wise and good people with common sense to tell the truth about the consequences of where we are headed.

"Some Friendly Advice to Mr. Biden"

 

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

 

Thought of the Day

“Some Friendly Advice to Mr. Biden”

March 1, 2022

 

“Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain

this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in

the struggle that’s now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets but 

a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the

beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.”

                                                                                           Ronald Reagan (1911-2004)

                                                                                           British House of Commons

June 8, 1982

(As quoted by Cal Thomas, February 24, 2022)

 

Right after President Obama’s inauguration in 2009, Rahm Emanuel, who served as White House Chief of Staff, famously said to never let a crisis go to waste. This evening, President Biden, facing the crisis that is Ukraine, should heed that advice when he speaks to the nation.

 

In a flurry of woke progressivism, the Administration has lost its way. The southern border is inundated by unvetted, unvaccinated illegal immigrants. Inflation is at 40-year highs. Schools that teach Critical Race Theory and encourage students to question their genders are upsetting parents. Crime rates have soared, especially in low-income areas of inner cities. People have grown weary of mask and vaccine mandates. School test scores, already low, have declined further.

 

Democrats, to survive in November, should go back to their roots of being the Party for working people – the middle class, small business owners, people who do not have the luxury to work remotely or send their children to private schools. They should abandon their left-wing, authoritarian over-reach. Despite being well-funded, the far-left, as defined by Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of “the Quad,” is represented by only nine percent of voters, according to an op-ed in Saturday’s The Wall Street Journal, an op-ed written by Elaine Kamarck and William Galston, both Democrats. 

 

Over the past several years, Democrats’ constituents have changed. The North East’s country club elites, who fifty years ago were Republicans, have become mainly Democrats. Wealthy Silicon Valley tycoons and Wall Street grandees resemble members of France’s ancien régime, unaware and uncaring of the needs of middle-class Americans, as they moralize behind their gated communities. These woke panjandrums were educated in elite universities by professors who abandoned classical liberalism to become intolerant of opposing opinions.

 

America is a centrist country, composed of middle-class, working Americans, many of whom have service jobs in hotels, restaurants and casinos. They drive taxis, buses and trucks. They work in hospitals, on road construction crews and in sewer treatment plants. This has meant that during the pandemic they either had to be at work or they did not get paid. It is estimated that more than a third of all American workers labor full or part time in the gig economy, many with multiple jobs, trying to stay ahead of rising inflation. Too many government rules, and demands for unionization, make their lives unnecessarily difficult. Thirty million small businesses, who employ almost half of all workers, are often ignored by politicians and harmed by complex regulations, which too often favor larger, better funded competitors. 

 

Joe Biden ran as a centrist on a platform that called for unity. Instead, he has heeded the call from the Party’s far left, with its woke message of division, with authoritarian overtones – censorship in schools, colleges, publishing houses, television, corporate boardrooms and social media; cancellation of speakers, careers and books that do not conform to the preferred message. Wokeism elevates race and gender over initiative and merit. 

 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine should serve as a call to return to the center – that the nation’s enemies are neither school parents in Virginia nor truckers heading to Washington, D.C. Our enemies are those who threaten our democratic republic – Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Cuba. For years, our capitalistic system, where individuals are free to innovate and compete, has reduced poverty and lifted hopes around the world. The people in Ukraine, in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, who lived under the Soviet Union, have witnessed what socialism does to one’s life. That is why they look west, not east. They understand better than the Sanders and the AOCs what happens when democracy fails, and authoritarianism prevails.

 

In his speech tonight, Mr. Biden has a chance to change course and gain the center. But will he? Will he remember the words of President Reagan, that “military strength is a prerequisite for peace?” Will he urge more oil and gas production to lower world prices, helping consumers and hurting Putin’s pocketbook? Will he stand with one of the world’s few Jewish heads of state, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, or will he let another domino fall in the collapse of the world’s democracies? Will he abandon leftist policies that have increased crime in inner cities, let in millions of undocumented migrants, brought inflation to all, and, by putting identity politics and the “Green New Deal” ahead of defense spending, weakened our military? Will he follow Theodore Roosevelt’s advice to speak softly but carry a big stick, or will he bellow while he carries a twig? Will he reach out to Independents and Republicans? Will he remind us that the nation’s power is embedded in its people? Will he act as a unifier, or will he continue as a divider?

 

The problem of extremism is not limited to Democrats. Republicans have them as well, but they are neither so well-funded, nor as embedded in our culture as are Democrat extremists. I do not hold out much expectation that Mr. Biden will follow this advice; if he does not, that will be good for Republicans. But he has the opportunity to improve his Party’s chances in 2022 and 2024. It will be seizure of the middle that will win future elections.  

"Intemperance of the Left"

Sydney M. Williams

www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Intemperance of the Left”

March 7, 2020

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

                                                                                    Barack Obama

                                                                                    June 13, 2008

                                                                                    Philadelphia town hall meeting

Just this past week, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Spoke outside the Supreme Court to protestors, while the Court was hearing a case that would require doctors in Louisiana who operate at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Senator Schumer, standing on the courthouse steps and speaking to protestors, called out Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh by name, threatening them: “ I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” When called out by others, including Chief Justice John Roberts, some Republican Senators and a few in the media, Senator Schumer claimed to regret his choice of words. Yet everything he says is predetermined and politically motivated. He is not stupid but has had no real-world experience. Since graduating from Harvard Law School in 1974, he has spent his entire career (forty-five years) in public service. He parses his words carefully.

This is not to absolve the Right, but vitriol among the sanctimonious left who feel a God-granted right to dictate to “deplorables” and others has become ubiquitous. Progressivism has become a religion in that it claims a moral code of wokeness, political correctness, identity politics, victimization and intolerance, the glue of shared values and mythologies. They clamor for diversity, as long as there is conformity in thought.

Nastiness and incivility have long been present on the political scene and always most venomous during political campaigns. There have always been fringe elements on both sides of the political divide who urge violence and recrimination against those with whom they disagree. However, incivility was generally limited to those on the political stage and to a few commentators whose bigotry is their success. Reporters and the general public were once more restrained in their observations. In our age of better educated citizens who have more free time to think about candidates and politics, unadulterated hatred should have given way to reflection and perspective. It hasn’t. Hatred, on the part of the left, has gone mainstream. Consider a few selections: White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family were asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Kentucky by the co-owner, because of her ties to the “inhumane and unethical” Trump Administration. Senior White House Policy Advisor Stephen Miller was accosted in a Washington, D.C. restaurant and called a “real-life fascist.” Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielson was forced to leave another restaurant when fifteen protestors showed up shouting “Shame!” Such acts were encouraged by the establishment. In June 2018, Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) told attendees at an event to continue publicly harassing members of President Trump’s Cabinet.

Why? The real reason has to do with the power that comes from political office and the patronage that is its fruit. Certainly, Mr. Trump is an outlier in terms of what we have come to expect in our political leaders. He has been divorced twice, dyes his hair an odd color of orange and speaks in an ill-educated manner. He is brash, coarse and insulting. He is a master at using ridicule to intimidate his opponents. But he does what he promises and has an intuitive sense for an America that has been yanked from the ties that had bound it to its democratic foundations, its history and its culture. He was disruptive at a time when America needed to be disrupted. Government has grown so big that bureaucrats in departments like Justice and the IRS have become impervious to control by elected officials, thus have impeded the democratic process.  

But the origins of this intemperance go back further than Mr. Trump. Christopher Caldwell of the Claremont Institute suggests in his book, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, that our partisan divide, in part, derives from two commissions created under the civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965 – an expanded Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The effect was to give more power to the Executive Branch, by relocating decisions – which had once been made by legislators responsible to voters – to unelected bureaucrats. Bureaucratic fiat and judicial decree have replaced legislation, legislation that reflected the collective opinions of opposing party members. For years, Democrats have had a “take no prisoner” attitude toward their Republican opponents. Ronald Reagan was called an “amiable dunce” by Democrat presidential advisor Clark Clifford. In July 1988, at the Democratic National Convention, Texas Treasurer Ann Richardson spoke derisively of Vice President George H. W. Bush: “Poor George, he can’t help it – he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”  Bruce Bawer, writing recently in fromtpagemag.com, claimed that Jon Stewart’s stint on the “Daily Show” (1999-2015) marked a sea-change from Johnny Carson’s “Tonight Show” (1962-1992). Carson’s show was humorous and pretty much free of political slant. He was never mean or underhanded. Stewart was blatantly left-wing. The 2000 Presidential election, decided by the Supreme Court, was a sore point among Democrats, one they have never forgotten, nor forgiven. Recriminations persisted. George W. Bush was “Dumbo” to some, “Uncurious George” to others, and “Bushitler” to those who hated him. Donald Trump has been called any number of names, from racist, to misogynist to xenophobic. Kathy Griffin held up his ‘severed head’ on television. Calls for his impeachment began before he assumed office. The New York Times Paul Krugman wrote that Trump fears “scary brown people.” Gail Collins, another columnist for the Times, titled an op-ed on Corona Virus, “Trumpvirus.”

The hatred that permeates our politics is pervasive and stems from a culture that separates people into victims and oppressors, one that encourages dependency for political gain. It is a culture that thrives on political correctness, that is “my way or the highway.” It is a culture born in our academies, rarely addressed by our families and thrives on Joseph Goebbels admonition: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” It makes use of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

The question is can (and will) we find our way out of this briar patch. Two-parent households are increasingly rare, especially among lower income families. Church attendance is down. Civic organizations have seen their numbers wane. Schools and universities, claiming diversity, have become uniform in matters of politics. Members of Congress devote substantial portions of their time to fund raising for their next election and less time collaborating with those of the opposite party. Yet, in his recent book A Time to Build, Yuval Levin offers a ray of hope. Mr. Levin argues that it has been these institutions – family, church, civic organization, schools, universities and even Congress – that have gone from molding their constituents according to tried and normalized rules and restraints, to offering themselves as platforms to vent personal views. As to fixing the problem, he argues that first we must acknowledge it exists. Second, we must recognize the positive, character-building aspects of institutions. Only then can we focus on their reconstruction and shun their destructive forces. I hope Mr. Levin is right. We’ll see.

"Murder in the U.S.A."

Sydney M. Williams

swtotd.blogspot.com

Thought of the Day

“Murder in the U.S.A.”

August 12, 2019

“Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind…”

                                                                                    John Donne

                                                                                    “No Man is an Island”

Devotions from Emergent Occasions, 1624

New Hampshire’s White Mountains, with their rugged, natural beauty and the sense of peace that whispers through the Pines, Hemlocks and Spruce that comprise their forests, seemed a long distance from the mass murders in El Paso and Dayton, as well as the never-ending killing of – mostly – young, Black, inner-city males. But this is a big country and it holds people of every ethnicity, nationality and religion – most all who are good, but a few who are evil. When united, we are morally strong; when divided we are vulnerable. 

What unites us is the idea of America. At our core, we love what America represents – the freedom it gives us and the opportunities it provides. Among our freedoms are those that allow us to speak up when we disagree, to protest policies that are at odds with ours. We can, in fact, insult our President. It is this personal freedom and the opportunities for social and economic advancement that attract so many to our shores.

What divides us has been the rise of extremism, driven by a sense of being ignored and by politicians who find compartmentalization of the electorate – by gender, race, religion and sexual orientation – politically opportunistic. The result is a culture that promotes identity politics and victimization; hatred is their progeny. In an August 6 op-ed for the New York Times, David Brooks wrote: “The struggle between pluralism and anti-pluralism is one of the great death struggles of our time, and it is being fought on every front.” What he wrote I believe to be true, but he did not connect anti-pluralism with politics of identity. Pluralism is preferred by those who believe in integration, not just of race, gender and religion but of ideas. It was what drove Martin Luther King, while Anti-pluralism is a consequence of those who thrive on politics of identity – be it white nationalism, Antifa, BlackLivesMatter, #MeToo, LGBTQ, or neo-Nazis. These lead to politics of hate and, thence, to acts of terror. We would be wise to heed David Brooks’ call for pluralism. After all, it is the motto on the Great Seal of the United States – e Pluribus Unum.

Politics, it has been said, is a blood sport. This is particularly true during elections, a cycle that today never ceases. Extremism did not originate with the election of 2016. “Never let a serious crisis go to waste,” said Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s Chief of Staff in 2009.  Extremism did not originate with President Obama either. Consider how mocked was George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and how sullied was Bill Clinton. Time white-washes some of the vitriol, but it was there. Politicians claim to abhor the consequence of this hatred, but they fail to take responsibility for the role they have played in its genesis. In dividing us, they have found benefit in addressing specific concerns for specific groups, but they have failed to foresee the unintended consequences of pushing people into segregated compartments. We have become, with their help – and abetted by the media – divided. We are like the Jets and the Sharks in “West Side Story.” We promote victimhood and then wonder at its deadly consequence. 

Democrat candidates were quick to blame President Trump for the murders in El Paso, for his alleged condoning of white nationalists, but were more subdued regarding the Dayton shooter Connor Betts and his support for Elizabeth Warren. The El Paso shooter, Patrick Crusius, has admitted to targeting Mexican immigrants. And, until this past week, President Trump had not singled out white nationalists as carriers of hate, but neither had Democrats condemned Antifa or those in the entertainment world who have called for Mr. Trump’s assassination. The hatred for President Trump exceeds anything our history offers. It is a hatred that knows no bounds. It is not limited to the Left. It has blurred the vision of publications like the National Reviewand individuals like George Will. When President Trump first spoke after the tragedies, he called for unity, but has been given no credit. The headline in the first edition of the New York Timesthe next day read: “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism.” But that was too much for biased readers. The headline over the same story in the second edition read: “Assailing Hate but not Guns.” In their sanctimonious hypocrisy, the media enflames the division. In an editorial on the causes of the tragedies in El Paso and Dayton, the Times referred to “white nationalists” fourteen times. They also mentioned “white supremacy” and “white extremists.” To ensure their opinion was not muddied, they added: “white nationalism has attained new mainstream legitimacy during Mr. Trump’s time in office.”

There was no mention in the Times editorial of the role played by mental health, identity politics, or the part played by a lack of moral teachings in families and in schools. No mention was made of politicians who have adopted political correctness as their mantra and who bow to union leaders, in a mutually symbiotic relationship. The editorial was not balanced with discussion of violent left-wing extremists like Antifa. There was no mention of those in the entertainment world who have publicly called for Mr. Trump’s assassination. All blame lay on the President and those who support him. While extremist talk is common in elections, we have reached a point that would be unrecognizable to prior generations. Both Patrick Crusius and Connor Betis should have been red-flagged, by parents, teachers and society.

Members of both parties must own up to and condemn extremists in their parties. In a passage attributable to Aristotle, it has been said we cannot change human nature, so a successful governing body must include concepts of virtue and compromise. We are a myriad people, representing different religions and races. We are conservatives and progressives, extremists and moderates. We come from different socio and economic backgrounds. We are not equal, nor can we ever be. Some of us are athletes, others are intellectuals. We range the spectrum in terms of abilities and aspirations. We are men, women, tall, short, heavy and thin. We are individuals, yet we are part of the greatest country the world has ever known. We are blessed, but only if we recognize the redeeming necessity of compromise. Out of many, one. Pluralism, as David Brooks reminded us, had better be our future. 

While mass shootings command our attention, thousands more get gunned down on city streets, with cities like St. Louis and Baltimore leading the way in urban murders. We need to talk about gun ownership, especially the ownership of assault weapons, while recognizing that restrictive gun laws do not prevent gun violence, as can be seen in cities like Hartford, CT. Nevertheless, we need to discuss universal gun registration and intelligent, thorough background checks. We need to do something about the danger represented by extremists, whether on the right like white nationalists or on the left like Antifa. We need to understand the role played by mental health and to red-flag those who might be at risk. We need to address the anti-social consequences of violence in movies and video games. We need to celebrate marriage and reflect on the cultural downside of single-parent families, a decline in church attendance and an abandonment of community memberships, and the loss of virtue mentioned by Aristotle. We need to dowse the heated rhetoric, whether coming from the President’s Tweets, political candidates or members of the media and entertainment communities, recognizing that one unintended consequence of social media is that what you say, do or write will follow you the rest of your days. We need to think of the damage done to the goal of pluralism by identity politics, and the hatred it spawns. We must regain the ability to laugh at ourselves. We are all, conservatives and progressives alike, as John Donne’s words remind us, “involved in mankind.” Every death affects us.

This essay was completed back in Essex, Connecticut, along the estuary of the Connecticut River. On Saturday, following the Connecticut River south from Brattleboro, Vermont, I thought of it as a metaphor for our nation. A river reflects the woods, fields, farms, towns and cities through which it passes.  It carries myriad objects, natural and man-made; and I thought of how man can pollute it, but also of how it provides enjoyment, employment and enriches and cleanses the land through which it and its tributaries pass. Diversity, like that in the river, is our strength. United we rise. Divided we fall.