Almost Classical

While nobody would suggest that Europe is about to embrace the United States' model of social democracy, it seems obvious that some countries are meandering towards our limited safety-net model just as we are racing towards their failing democratic socialism. Germany began reforms nearly 15 years ago, and it is doing well. There are many other variables, and Germany is not America — or even Canada — but it is shifting towards a more flexible labor market and less "generous" social programs. Now, it seems Denmark is following the German lead. That's a big shift in thought, and one driven by the stark realization that the social safety-net is unsustainable. Consider this article from the New York Times: Danes Rethink a Welfare State Ample to a Fault http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html COPENHAGEN — It began as a stunt intended to prove that hardship and poverty still existed in this small, wealthy cou...

Evidence of "Big Government" efficiency: FCC: 41 percent of Lifeline phone subsidies in 2012 weren't verified . Among the top five providers receiving money for telecom service to the poor in 2012, 41 percent of their customers either couldn't or didn't prove they were eligible. The lack of answers leaves a real possibility that some of the $2.2 billion spent on Lifeline in 2012 might have gone to those who didn't need it. In response, the FCC is keen to claim that its reforms may have saved $214 million last year…. Let's assume a 41 percent fraud rate, though I assume it is closer to 50 percent in this program. (We can also assume 20 percent to 30 percent waste, fraud, and abuse in most federal programs, sadly. Read the old classic Government Waste A to Z for a depressing analysis.) At $2.2 billion annually, that means the Lifeline program and us, the taxpayers, are being scammed for $902 million annually. Similar issues have been found in so many...

I'll be among those to admit we need more revenues to reduce the ludicrous debt of the federal government. We also need to cut spending dramatically to have any hope of balance in the future. Personally, I'd rather see the cuts first, and then we can slowly raise taxes to reduce the annual deficit followed by paying down the debt to a reasonable maintenance level. Unrestrained government expansion comes at a price. At least John B. Judis admits as much in a recent essay on the "need" for higher taxes. Obama's Tax Hikes Won't Be Nearly Big Enough http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/111486/obamas-tax-hikes-wont-be-nearly-big-enough The New Republic John B. Judis December 28, 2012 | 1:23 pm [There] are a set of unpleasant truths lurking behind this debate over the budget and taxes that policy-makers in Washington need to acknowledge. First, that in order to meet public demands for affordable health care, quality public education, and retirement insurance, gove...

Robert J. Samuelson: Romney’s chance to challenge the welfare state - The Washington Post I wish the Republicans had nominated someone with at least some rhetorical skills, and ideally someone with a genuine sense of the American Dream from hard-earned experience. Mitt Romney? He might be the worst thing to happen to the GOP's public image since George W. Bush. When Romney described 47 percent of Americans, he was ruining a discussion we must have a nation: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. — ...