Today I was asked two questions about the Tea Party: Am I afraid of it? Do they propose to cut spending or only to cut taxes?
My answer to the fear question was “How much worse could they do than the established parties, which have started (and continue to choose to fight) two expensive wars and strangled the nation’s economy?”
My answer to the second question was “I’m not sure”. A big of Googling brought up http://www.thecontract.org/the-contract-from-america/, which seems to me to be the closest thing that there is to a “tea party platform”. The “contract” implies some serious spending cuts by including both “Demand a Balanced Budget” and “Stop the Tax Hikes”. The federal government now spends approximately $1.5 trillion more than it takes in and the U.S. economy isn’t growing. Therefore, a balanced budget without tax hikes would require eliminating a lot of popular government programs, such as the military, Medicare, Medicaid, and huge cuts to others, such as Social Security. The Tea Partiers have left this inconvenient truth out of their contract, so it is hard to say what the Tea Party is actually advocating.
Taking it down to the household level, imagine a person saying loudly “We are going to cut spending so as to achieve a balanced budget” but won’t say whether the cell phones are to be ditched, the cable TV service terminated, or whether he or she proposes to move to a cheaper apartment.
[The other question government-related question I was asked this evening regarded Social Security. I said that if the current generation of retirees got more back from Social Security than they put in, necessarily some retirees in the future would have to get back less. The only way to avoid that would be a permanent Ponzi scheme in which we grew the U.S. population to be larger than the Earth’s (so that there was always an expanding number of workers to pay off promises to retirees). That said, it has proved difficult for me to substantiate the actual return on investment for current Social Security recipients. This 1996 article says that an average male retiree in 1980 got back 3.7 times more than his contributions would have earned if they’d been invested in bonds; an average female retiree got back 4.4 times due to longer life expectancy. A more nuanced perspective comes from this Cato Institute article, which shows that medium earners got only a couple of percentage points better than in government bonds (though a slight premium adds up over a 40-year career and this article is from the mid-1990s, before the “lost decade” for investors in U.S. securities).]
Full post, including comments