The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has released another "Economics 101" video, and this one has a very powerful message about the federal government's so-called War on Poverty.
As explained by Hadley Heath of the Independent Women's Forum, the various income redistribution schemes being imposed by Washington are bad for taxpayers -- and bad for poor people.
The video has a plethora of useful information, but the data on the poverty rate is particularly compelling. Prior to the War on Poverty, the United States was getting more prosperous with each passing year and there were dramatic reductions in the level of destitution.
But once the federal government got involved in the mid-1960s, the good news evaporated. Indeed, the poverty rate has basically stagnated for the past 40-plus years, usually hovering around 13 percent depending on economic conditions.
Another remarkable finding in the video is that poor people in America rarely suffer from material deprivation. Indeed, they have wide access to consumer goods that used to be considered luxuries - and they also have more housing space than the average European (and with Europe falling apart, the comparisons presumably will become even more noteworthy).
The most important message of the video, however, is that small government and economic freedom are the best answers for poverty. As Hadley explains, poor people can be liberated to live meaningful, self-reliant lives if we can reduce the heavy burden of the federal government.
Last but not least, the video doesn't address every issue in great detail, and there are three additional points that should be added to any discussion of poverty.
- The biggest beneficiaries of the current system are the army of bureaucrats that receive very comfortable salaries administering various programs.
- The Obama Administration is looking to re-define poverty in a way that would expand the welfare state and increase the burden of redistribution programs.
- The welfare reform legislation of the 1990s was a small step in the right direction because it eliminated a federal entitlement and shifted responsibility back to the state level. This success story should be replicated for programs such as Medicaid.
This last point is worth emphasizing because it is also one of the core messages of the video. The federal government has done a terrible job dealing with poverty. The time has come to get Washington out of the racket of income redistribution.
The administration argues that suspected al Qaida terrorists – even U.S. citizens – can be targeted for assassination because they either (a) pose an imminent threat or (b) are part of an enemy army; and (c) other governments are unwilling or unable to act. Although the Fifth Amendment ensures that persons not be denied due process, it’s unclear what process is “due” – especially when the person is a citizen. For example, a U.S. citizen who threatens hostages with imminent loss of life can be killed by law enforcement authorities. Similarly, an American who serves in a foreign army against which the United States is at war is plainly a legitimate target.
Moreover, under the Nationality Act, a citizen can lose his citizenship if he intends to do so (although intent can be inferred by actions) and he either (a) declares allegiance to a foreign state, (b) serves in a post requiring such a declaration, (c) serves in armed forces in combat with the United States, or (d) serves as an officer or NCO in the armed forces of a foreign state.
Still, the killing of Awlaki is a close legal call. On balance, it’s probably unlawful. The imminent-threat contention isn't credible. To my knowledge, no one has identified a threat that is imminent (meaning: about to happen). The part-of-an-enemy-army claim and the loss-of-citizenship argument raise several questions: First, is the Nationality Act itself constitutional? The Constitution establishes criteria for citizenship. Stripping someone of citizenship effectively changes those criteria, and Congress may not have that power. Second, even if the Nationality Act is constitutional, does al Qaida qualify as a foreign state for purposes of the Act? Are al Qaida agents equivalent to soldiers engaged in combat with the United States? Third, even if the Nationality Act might apply in Awlaki's case, how do we know that he triggered the provisions of the Act? Can the administration simply assert that he met one of the tests for loss of citizenship, or must there be some threshold process to make that determination?
Finally, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force sanctioned force against those involved in the 9/11 tragedy. Awlaki, although not directly involved, probably qualified as part of an “associated force”; but actions that might self-evidently be lawful if Awlaki were actively fighting on a battlefield are less so when he’s allegedly plotting attacks from Yemen.
All told, when U.S. citizens are targeted, I’d be more comfortable with somewhat more process – not a trial before an Article III court, of course, but perhaps the equivalent of an assassination warrant that required a non-executive-branch body with relevant expertise to certify sufficient cause. Anything less risks disrespect for the Constitution, which could have regrettable implications in other areas. The separation of powers doctrine, if it means anything, stands for the proposition that citizens cannot be killed on command of the executive branch alone, without regard to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Naturally, exceptions are justified for truly imminent threats. If I were convinced that involvement of another branch might result in Awlaki-types escaping punishment, I'd be more willing to invoke "emergency" powers – similar to hot pursuit – but not in this case.
Today, October 1, is the first day of the 2012 fiscal year.
And if you're wondering why America's economy seems to have a hangover (this cartoon is a perfect illustration), it's because politicians had a huge party with our money in FY2011.
We don't have final numbers for the fiscal year that just ended, but let's look at the CBO Monthly Budget Report, the CBO Economic and Budget Update, and the OMB Historical Tables, and see whether there's anything worth celebrating.
- The federal government spent about $3.6 trillion in FY2011, more money than any government has ever spent in a 12-month period in the history of the world.
- The FY2011 budget is nearly double the burden of federal spending just 10 years earlier, when federal outlays consumed "only" $1.86 trillion.
- The federal budget in FY2011 consumed about 24 percent of national output, up sharply compared to a spending burden in FY2001 of "just" 18.2 percent of GDP.
- Defense spending is too high, and has increased by about $400 billion since 2001, but the vast majority of the additional spending is for domestic spending programs.
- Federal tax revenue in FY2011 will be about $2.25 trillion, an increase of 7-8 percent over FY2010 levels.
- Economic stagnation has affected tax revenues, which are lower than the $2.6 trillion level from FY2007.
- Federal receipts amount to about 15.3 percent of GDP, below the long-run average of 18 percent of GDP.
- The Congressional Budget Office does predict that revenues will rise above the 18-percent average - without any tax increases - by the end of the decade.
- Record levels of government spending, combined with low revenues caused by a weak economy, will result in a $1.3 trillion deficit.
- This is the third consecutive deficit of more than $1 trillion.
- The publicly-held national debt (the amount borrowed from the private sector) is now more than $10 trillion.
With budget numbers like these, no wonder America has a fiscal hangover.
And let's be blunt about assigning blame. Yes, Obama has been a reckless big spender, but he is merely continuing the irresponsible statist policies of his predecessor.
Fortunately, there is a solution. All we need to do is restrain the growth of federal spending, as explained in this video.
But we also know that it is difficult to convince politicians to do what's right for the nation. And if they don't change the course of fiscal policy, and we leave the federal government on autopilot, then America is doomed to become another Greece.
The combination of poorly designed entitlement programs (mostly Medicare and Medicaid) and an aging population will lead to America's fiscal collapse.