The solutions most often proposed to solve the budget crisis involve raising taxes, or trimming the military, or highways, or meat inspection or other functions of government- and that leads us to the "Willie Sutton" reason that no end is in sight - because the solutions never go "where the money is."
With the vast majority of the budgets devoted to massive expenses such as benefits, pensions and health insurance, why are the only places the budgets are cut are the tiny places, such as the library or the senior center or closing a roadside rest or a park? Obviously, it’s because the “big things” in the budgets are considered "off limits." – Yep, normal services are cut, offices are closed and inspections are curtailed or parks and monuments shut down or highway rest stops closed or building projects delayed a year or two. A lot of pain is inflicted, but the tiny cuts don’t bring us any closer to solving the problem. In fact, those tiny cuts can’t bring us any closer to solving the problem, because that’s not “where the money is.”
Some states, such as Illinois and California, are faced with devoting a large chunk of their budgets just to pay pensions for retired employees. Pennsylvania may not be too far behind.
States could save a lot more money by trimming benefits a point or two than they could be closing the parks or shutting the senior centers or furloughing workers for two days. During one of our “sequestration crises” President Obama ordered the World War II Memorial in Washington DC closed, to save money. Please note this is an open-air memorial that, if the fountains were shut off, truly could be kept open at no cost. It is hard to find something that the federal government does that costs less to operate than monuments of this type. It is the equivalent of claiming it will save money by removing the historical markers along the highways. Of course, the President made his point, which was 1) to pretend that there was nowhere else to cut spending; and 2) to hit "middle America" hard enough to make us contact our Senators and Congressmen and demand they raise taxes to keep the Memorial open.
Our defense budget keeps shrinking (and, let us be clear – there is waste, fraud, abuse and overspending and misspending galore in the defense budget – but the cuts aren’t in those places, they are in readiness and spare parts and training and maintenance and in letting our capabilities slip.) Spending on almost everything else that the federal government does has skyrocketed. The Marine Corps might not have the money to keep its planes in flying trim, but the administration has enough that it can give away free phones and broadband internet.
Of course, whether we are underfunding defense or not, we are spendthrifts compared to the European countries, who have sheltered under our wing for seventy years, even though they could easily afford to cover the cost of their own protection - if they didn't have to spend so much on their welfare states.
Their welfare systems destroy initiative and breed dependency. They may not want to subsidize bad habits, or destroy initiative and self-reliance, but that’s what they are doing, and America is just about in the same position.
It appears as if big government thrives by making as many people as possible depend on it for…well, for everything. When was the last time you heard an elected official at the state or federal level say “we can’t afford” something? Other than a few lonely exceptions, about the only time one hears that in Washington is when someone justifies spending money by claiming “we can’t afford” NOT to spend. Presidents keep proposing and Congress keeps sustaining programs whether they are successful or not– and they defend each program as vital, declaring some group will be devastated if that program is halted. If only their concern for the taxpayers was as great.
It is too easy to raise taxes, and much too easy to raise spending, and it is way too difficult to stop programs. We arrived at our present crisis because of decisions that were made without a full understanding of their cost and consequences. Our nation needs voters who will elect people who can resist the instinct to spend money that we don’t have, and who will make the necessary decisions, painful though they may be, to rein in the programs that are out of control.