Americans, like their European counterparts, have a shameful sense of entitlement that is poised to end our dalliance with democracy. In step with the citizens of Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, Americans continue to demand public officials deliver services without imposing an appropriate surcharge. And, sadly, elected officials respond to these demands with little apparent regard for the future. The impending vote on President Obama's "great compromise" -- a $858 billion increase in our national debt -- is but the most recent case in point. We have agreed to extend tax cuts the nation cannot afford in order to provide more unemployment payments -- that Washington can also not afford.
"Not to worry" cry those best described as Pollyannas. "The economic stimulus provided by this deficit spending will serve to enhance tax revenues." Really? Given our current incoherent tax laws, economists estimate a 1% increase in U.S. gross domestic product will only generate about $40 billion in addition federal revenue. Now $40 billion may seem like a lot of money to you and me, but $40 billion in Washington's hands is insufficient to run the State Department or pay a tenth of the Pentagon's annual bills. And $40 billion is just a drop in the bucket when you consider a 10 year extension of the current tax rates will increase the national debt by at least $1.8 trillion... before Congress figures out how to further expand spending so as to meet their constituent's endless demand for federal handouts.
Oh, I'm certainly not alone in noting publicly elected officials are seemingly incapable of reining-in spending. A Washington Post/ABC poll conducted from 9-12 December found 55% of respondents disapprove of Obama's efforts to address the deficit. Approximately 60% of the same respondents declared the nation's fiscal ailments should be addressed via a combination of increased taxation and spending cuts... but... well, I think you can see this coming. Less than 5 minutes after expressing a desire for federal financial responsibility, 54% of those surveyed expressed support for extending the Bush tax cuts, 78% opposed raising federal gasoline taxes, 64% opposed reducing annual increases in Social Security benefits, and 52% opposed a reduction in defense spending. In fact, the poll found a majority of Americans oppose seven of nine proposals currently being debated as options for reducing the federal deficit.
Given these numbers it should not be surprising our survey-sensitive elected officials are reluctant to read Edmond Burke. Back in 1774, Burke admonished the electors of Bristol by arguing a wise elected official strives to serve the nation... not his or her selfish constituency. As Burke so eloquently put it, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." He then went on to decree:
"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole."
Alas, Edmund Burke has been dead for over 200 years... and there is no one in the current American political establishment who appears willing to don his cloak and argue each member of the House and Senate should case aside constituent greed in favor of a greater national good. Instead, the world watches as our deliberative body argues over tax breaks for the wealthy while quietly packing legislation with pork totaling over $8 billion.
To make matters worse Tea Party candidates who were supposedly elected to clean up this mess have immediately adopted the behavior of their predecessors. The Washington Post reports at least 13 of the incoming new Republicans have hired former lobbyists to run their offices -- and I have lost track of how many lobbyist fundraisers these "outsiders" have attended in the short month since winning office. Now there is nothing wrong about convoluting with lobbyists -- the Constitution does provide for freedom of speech and an ability to petition our legislators. The real problem here is that lobbyists -- by definition -- are not overwhelmingly paid to promote national objectives. They are paid to provide lip service for selective interests... and the justification for their fees is a tendency to generate even more government spending.
Is it really too late to fix this mess? To save our government from bankruptcy? Considering the violent protests in Greece and Great Britain, the answer is an unfortunate yes. Constituents who have fed at the teat of federal largess for all of their adult lives are not about to tolerate a significant reduction in a long-subsidized lifestyle. As Athens and London have discovered, pulling children away from the teat prompts a violent tantrum and likely removal from office in any future election. Such behavior condemns democracy as a form of governance to that rapidly filling ash bin of history. Selfish constituents who cannot be ignored are like young children and dogs -- in desperate need of authoritarian leadership that prevent burning down the house or running into traffic.
That lesson appears to have sunk in with the Chinese, Russians, and Singaporeans. Beijing's success has become the "China model" -- a formidable challenge to the ideals our nation purports to be "unalienable." Confronted with such a dire situation one would think we would be more responsible... so one would think. We appear nowhere near achieving such a grim realization. Instead, Americans chose to engage in behavior that is indeed a foretelling of the demise of democracy.