- ‘Operation Normandy’ set to send 3,500 volunteers to border to ‘stop an invasion’
- Netanyahu’s spokesman: Safe to fly to Israel
- Oregon vandals smear cars with doughnuts, pastries, chocolate bars
- Obama’s ‘Katrina moment’ leaves his favorability factor at 42 percent
- Feds tout nearly 200 arrests, $625K in seized cash in Texas border crackdown
- Joy Behar: Sarah Palin should be ‘turning letters over on some game show’
- Rhino poacher in South Africa sentenced to 77 years in jail
- John Kerry defies FAA and flies to Israel to talk peace
- Beretta leaves Maryland over gun laws, heads for Tennessee
- Neal Boortz defends Hillary Clinton for representing child rapist
FEULNER: Urgency vs. duty of Constitution
Question of the Day
In business, the urgent often crowds out the important. It’s important to have a long-term business plan. But it’s urgent to make this week’s payroll.
The same applies in governing.
Policymakers are surrounded by urgent problems: General Motors has failed; North Korea is testing atomic weapons; the national debt is exploding. These are big problems, but they can’t be solved properly without focusing on what’s important: preserving the Constitution and the freedoms it protects.
This has always been the goal of conservatism. And it’s what conservatives must focus on even more in the decades ahead.
The most crucial element is national defense. The federal government is required to “provide for the common defense,” without which our freedom is impossible. Ironically, while the Obama administration has raced to increase spending in virtually every area ($800 billion or so in “stimulus,” $600 billion or so for health care), it intends to slash the defense budget.
In the next fiscal year, the administration plans to spend about 3.8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. That paltry investment - far below the post-World War II average of nearly 6 percent of GDP - would then drop year after year, eventually reaching a mere 3 percent of GDP in 2019.
As part of the cuts, President Obama wants to pare or even eliminate many critical ships and planes that would allow the U.S. to retain our advantage over any potential foes. Even worse, the Pentagon recently announced a $1.4 billion cut for missile defense.
One result is that, “We will not increase the number of current ground-based interceptors in Alaska as had been planned,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced. This makes no sense. With North Korea testing nuclear weapons and missile systems, it’s urgent that the U.S. expand our missile-defense systems (and even offer them to allies) - not slash funding.
One reason Mr. Obama is eager to reduce defense spending is because he’s increased spending almost everywhere else. Our country is already borrowing 50 cents of every dollar that it spends. Under his budget, public debt will more than double to 82.4 percent of GDP by 2019. Interest payments on this debt would be $100 billion more than Mr. Obama projects to spend on the entire Department of Defense.
Or take another constitutional duty: to “promote the general welfare.” The long-term picture here looks even bleaker.
Consider the grandfather of entitlement programs. The Social Security Trustees Report says the program has promised to pay out more in benefits than it receives in taxes, starting in 2016. To make good on all of Social Security’s promised benefits for the next 75 years, Congress would have to invest $7.7 trillion today.
That’s more than twice what the federal government will spend this year on everything it buys. And again, this investment would be on top of the funding Social Security will collect through payroll taxes.
There’s simply no way to make the math add up. To avoid a collapse that would endanger future generations, conservatives should press for broad reforms today. Lawmakers should raise the retirement age and focus future benefits on those who need them the most. They should also create personal retirement accounts, so workers could own and invest a portion of the money they shell out through payroll taxes.
Conservatives should demand another prerequisite of freedom: a limited government that upholds the rule of law and unleashes the power of free markets. We need answers: When did Congress agree to pour $50 billion into General Motors? Why was the company able to bypass the usual bankruptcy procedures? Were individual investors treated as fairly as labor unions were? These questions have yet to be answered.
About the Author
TWT Video Picks
Retailer pays a price for getting too close to Obama
- David Perdue defeats Jack Kingston in Georgia Republican Senate primary runoff
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- CARSON: Costco and the perils of mixing politics and business
- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies
- 'Straight White Guy Festival' supposedly set for Ohio park
- DEACE: How to go from civil rights icon to bigot in one quote
- EDITORIAL: A new witch hunt in Salem
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq