Losing our independence
As more Americans, especially the unemployed, come to rely on government to take care of them, we risk losing our independence.
The Washington Times reports American reliance on government is at an all-time high. This is not our Founders’ America. We seem to have declined from a “can-do” spirit, to “can’t do”—at least without government—and soon, unless we change our ways, “won’t do.”
Our forebears practiced self-reliance, living within one’s means, and helping neighbors. Much of our modern economy is built on overspending, satisfying desires, pretense, envy, greed, and a sense of entitlement. Politicians who do not wish to disabuse us of such things keep seeking ways to prop up the falling house of cards. Who is brave enough tell us we can’t go on living—and spending—like this?
Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., has temporarily replaced Dick Cheney as the Darth Vader of America. His one-man blockade of unemployment and COBRA benefits stems from his belief that we can’t keep spending money we don’t have and that any extension of unemployment benefits should be paid for. Big media and liberal Democrats, many of whom denounced the far smaller Bush administration deficits, pilloried him. Having made his point on fiscal responsibility, late Tuesday, Bunning agreed to allow a vote on extending unemployment benefits, highway construction funding, and spending on other federal programs. In return, Senate leaders agreed to allow votes on amendments Bunning will introduce to cut enough spending in other areas to pay for it all.
In The Washington Times story, Harm Bandholz, an economist at Unicredit Markets, told writer Patrice Hill that our massive shift from self-reliance to dependence on government may have been essential in order to have promoted last year’s economic revival, but he says it has merely delayed an ultimate day of reckoning for consumers “who went too far into debt to maintain their lifestyles during the boom years.” This is not only the story of many individuals, but also the story of state and federal governments that go on spending sprees during the good times and hike taxes and engage in “painful spending cuts” during lean years.
But back to Sen. Bunning’s point, a point made by Democrats when they invoke “pay-go,” by which they mean new spending must be paid for (but not old spending), either with tax increases or spending cuts, which never seems to quite work out. The best we can hope from politicians is for them to cut rates on spending increases. Even that is criticized when Republicans try it. “What about the children?” is the predictable and phony lament.
Our financial woes become clear when today’s total U.S. debt is compared with total debt during the Great Depression. Patrice Hill writes, “As a result of record U.S. government borrowing, total debt in the United States has soared to an all-time high of 370 percent of yearly economic output, far exceeding its peak of 300 percent during the Great Depression.”
“We were neck deep in the big muddy,” sang Pete Seeger about the Vietnam War, “and the big fool said to push on.” The Obama-Reid-Pelosi wing doesn’t care how high the water or how deep the mud. They’re pushing on toward more debt and greater dependence on government. When Sen. Bunning says we can’t or we’ll sink, he is vilified. Those who wrongly told us we could ford this river of debt—Democrats and Republicans—should be the ones taking heat. Ultimately, though, too many of us got ourselves into the muck because we believed the advertisers and marketers—and politicians—confusing real needs with wants.
The more we come to rely on government, the fewer freedoms we will enjoy. Government will start dictating what we can own, eat, and drive; how much of our money they will let us keep; how we run our businesses; how many—if any—guns we can own; and what we may and may not say. Oh, wait! They are already doing that.
To preserve freedom we must fight for it. Bondage comes when we refuse to fight and are satisfied with the king’s largesse. That foul odor coming from Washington is the frog in the kettle coming to a boil.
© 2010 Tribune Media Services Inc.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top36 Comments to “Losing our independence”
We will crack under the weight of the debt, there is no doubt, but don’t take it out on the unemployed.
Report comment to moderator
It is amazing how quickly we give up our independence when our pockets are lined with silver.
But deep down, we all really want to rule ourselves — but we want someone else to fund it.
Check out “The Kingdom of Me” at http://www.redletterbelievers.com
Report comment to moderator
Great article Cal….too bad the Progressives have control of our country though because they are taking our liberty and independence and stuffing it in the pockets of the Chinese and making unemployment levels under 8% seem like a dream when a couple of years ago 8% seemed like a crisis.
Report comment to moderator
The city I live in is about to enter the pitched battle of a mayoral election. The devisive/deciding issue will be city employee pensions driven by the unions. City employees do not pay anything toward their penions–at least public school teachers do that much–and many can retire in their 50s with up to 80% to 90% of their salary. This is what bankrupted the city of San Diego so some of the police and fire got new jobs in Chula Vista and destroyed their budget.
It is not always the unemployed that tax us most.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer, I don’t think the question is “taking it out on the unemployed,” but whether unemployment should be limited in extent. Continuing to make it last longer probably doesn’t help our economy in the long run–people have less incentive to try hard to find work, and it comes out of all of our pockets.
Report comment to moderator
Grover Cleveland veteod a bill that would have spent $10,000 to buy seed for drought stricken Texas farmers. To explain that, he said that although there was great need and he would love to help them out, he could not find the basis in the constitution for the federal government to take taxpayer dollars and give to those in need. He called on private individuals (who already were helping out) to solve the problem.
That is what our constitution set up. Now, we can’t make a leap back to that immediately, but we must curtail spending – and not just spending increases, but actual spending – in order to get back within our government’s constitutional limits.
Entitlements are so hard to cut, because they have been promised and people rely on them. But, we have to find some way to roll them back – practically, it will have to be slowly in order to not destroy people’s lives too much – but it has to be done if we are going to avoid hyperinflation or national default.
Report comment to moderator
I recently heard (from Jason Lewis on the radio) that there has been a 15% increase in government jobs since Obama took over, and yet the unemployment figures have risen beyond expectation. Also, 60% of Americans now receive MORE in government subsidies than they pay in taxes.
Can anyone confirm these figures or tell me where to look to do so?
Report comment to moderator
The majority of Americans knowingly voted for more loss of independence and for absolute one-party-rule to ensure this loss. The majority of Americans don’t really want to be free. We want to be dependent. The current United States of America prefers collectivist submission.
Report comment to moderator
When the Bush-Cheney Administration spied on us to protect us I felt much safer.
When the Obama-Biden Administration spied on us to protect us I felt so much more endangered.
I don’t measure mileage very well.
Report comment to moderator
The majority of Americans knowingly voted for more loss of independence and for absolute one-party-rule to ensure this loss. The majority of Americans don’t really want to be free. We want to be dependent. The current United States of America prefers collectivist submission.
I presume the person who wrote this comment will be leaving this country soon, though he perhaps loves it.
Unless he is going to secede right where he is and declare his domicile an independent state. One can only hope?
Report comment to moderator
Cal Thomas wrote; “To preserve freedom we must fight for it.”
Most of us won’t even vote for it, let alone work or fight for it. Nevertheless, no one will be satisfied with “the king’s largesse.” The more he subsidizes and despenses, the less the receivers will be satisfied.
Report comment to moderator
“As more Americans, especially the unemployed, come to rely on government to take care of them, we risk losing our independence.”
If they weren’t relying on govt. they’d be relying on relatives or charities.
Why is relying on govt. “safety net” programs “losing our independence” and not relying on family/church “safety nets”?
Report comment to moderator
President Obama said; “At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. The American people want to know it is still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.” ~ President Barack Obama, White House East Room Address on his proposed health care bill, March 3, 2010.
Frankly, I am tired of Washington DC claiming to look out for our interests, but acting only in ways that undermine our interests and our liberties. I want them to stop acting like that.
They are actually acting in their own interest, and claiming it is all in our interest. Sadly, millions of Americans fall for this like toddlers taking candy.
I would rather the government leave more of our alleged “interests” alone.
Report comment to moderator
This is not our Founders’ America.
You’re right. There’s no slaves or indentured servants. People live in cities not the country. Instead of pre-industrial America is now post industrial, and so on.
Our forebears practiced self-reliance, living within one’s means, and helping neighbors.
They also practiced slavery, land theft, racism, genocidal policies towards natives, and other non-neighborly activities.
As for Sen. Bunning, where was he when Bush was spending money he didn’t have on a pre-emptive and discretionary war in Iraq?
Government will start dictating what we can own, eat, and drive; how much of our money they will let us keep; how we run our businesses; how many—if any—guns we can own; and what we may and may not say.
Do you honestly think if the gov’t was not involved in these decision you would have more input? If not the gov’t, corporations will dictate to you.
Bondage comes when we refuse to fight and are satisfied with the king’s largesse.
One can say the same when one is satisfied with largesse of the corporation.
Report comment to moderator
In NJ, our new governor wants to cut back the unemployment when we have over 10% unemployed and the jobs are just not here. As someone wrote in our letters to the editor, unemployment is poverty level. People can rarely live on it.
A corporation cannot tell me what to eat the way the government can. I am always free to reject its advertising. So, yes, I honestly think I would have more input because I am free not to purchase. More importantly, the government has no right to tell me what to eat because that is not one of the enumerated powers in the Constitution. Leftists, of course, can’t begin to comprehend limited government because they can’t think or live without the government telling them exactly what they can and cannot do. What an insult to those who fought for our freedoms.
Report comment to moderator
I am dumbfounded to read that anyone thinks that it’s okay to have the government interfere because golly gee whiz, if it isn’t the government, it’ll be a corporation. To choose either one to make decisions for you is absurd.
Report comment to moderator
Here is where I posted the comment I knew I posted.
You know who, please tell me how you are “proud to be an American.” It doesn’t take virtue or effort to be born in America. It’s just an accident. To claim to be proud of this is dumb. Tell me again how you know better. Don’t slam the door on the way out as you leave.
If you serve in the Armed Forces, or save lives, or something similar, perhaps the statement makes some sense. I am not even posting patriotic comments on a forum is anything to be proud of.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
The corporation is responsible to its shareholders only. The gov’t is by the people of the people and for the people. You can always call your elected representative but you can’t call your local CEO. The ability to have input is the crucial difference.
Report comment to moderator
You can call up either one, HRW–a politician and a CEO, and you will have trouble either way. Perhpas it is easier to get the CEO though.
Report comment to moderator
“Our forebears practiced self-reliance, living within one’s means, and helping neighbors.”
This is generally true, to a far greater extent than we do now. About 3 to 5% had slaves (generally in the South), as HRW pointed out, but our forebears were among the first in the world (along with Great Britain) to abolish the slave trade and slavery, while most of the world let it flourish. Yet even one more reason to be extra justly proud of our forebears. And consider the cost they paid to do the right thing.
Also HRW, native Americans practiced genocidal deeds on other native Americans too and also committed many mass murders (unprovoked) against innocetn Americans of European decent. But this sometimes went both ways, both provoked and sometimes unprovoked. It’s hard to keep score on such things.
Report comment to moderator
HRW asked; “As for Sen. Bunning, where was he when Bush was spending money he didn’t have on a pre-emptive and discretionary war in Iraq?”
Sen. Bunning was doing the right thing and supporting this action. Our use of force and our war on terrorists and those who support terrorists (sanctioned by congress) is of a whole different level of concern than domestic policy bills. Protecting the citizens is actually the main responsibility of gov’t.
PLUS, congress had not just passed a “Pay-Go” bill and then hypocritically disregard it. Context, context, context, HRW.
Report comment to moderator
I frequently read Joel’s comments with astonishment.
Report comment to moderator
More broadly, where was he when Cheney said “deficits don’t matter”?
Where was he when Bush passed Medicare Part D with no attempt at all to pay for it?
Where was he when Bush passed his tax cuts with no attempt at all to make up for the lost revenue?
Where was he when Bush took Clinton’s $250 billion surplus and turned it into a $500 billion deficit?
The Iraq War didn’t protect American citizens. But beyond that disagreement, to your unstated premise: “expenditures which protect the citizens are justified, even if they cannot be paid for.”
Given that, if it were in fact true that more people died each year because they lacked medical insurance than died on 9/11, would you agree that insurance for those people would be a justified expense?
Report comment to moderator
Didn’t Bunning vote for Bush’s 700 Billion dollar bailout? So nearly a trillion for the wall street bankers, but “fiscal austerity” for the workers. Nice.
This sort of reminds me of that video from CPAC, where Mitt Romney denounces both “socialized medicine” AND cutbacks in Medicare, in the very same sentence.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, I don’t have to buy a product of any corporation. You hand over your freedoms without any thought to it at all. And it is way easier to put a corporation out of business than the government. Don’t be lazy.
Report comment to moderator
Sen. Bunning did the right thing and stood pretty much alone in the process. This is intolerable to today’s corrupt elites and their sycophants (the majority of Americans).
Moral courage MUST be condemned or more of it may surface.
Whatever else Sen. Bunning has done in his life may be debated on its own merits. No one is saying he is politically perfect (although he was certifiably perfect at least one day on a pitcher’s mound). But he was honest and right this time and all the lame attempts to throw up smoke to blind us to this are, well, predictable.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
Cheney was wrong if he said that “deficits don’t matter.” I guess that being wrong at least once makes him unique among all politicians and public servants, right?
Conservatives have been criticizing Republicans for overspending a long time. Sen. Bunning is right to say it is time to stop, even if he participated in the problem before. And he is just about the ONLY one who is right now.
But when it comes to wars, nearly EVERY war we ever fought as a nation was fought on a deficit. If a war is just, then it must be waged and won over and above budget questions and issues. National defense trumps such matters, unlike domestic entitlement bills and programs.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, Bush’s tax cuts actually brought in more revenue because it pulled us out of the recession we were in and fueled jobs and created a lot more tax-payers.
Report comment to moderator
Can you offer any support for this claim?
Also, your assumed premise in this enthymeme is that if a proposal will be financially beneficial in the long run, we need not worry about paying for it in the short run. Assuming the CBO scored them correctly, either health care bill could be passed under this premise.
This is only true if you circularly define “conservatives” as “people who criticized the Republicans for overspending.” In fact, a majority of people who self-identify as conservative supported the Republican overspending.
Standing up to your own party requires moral courage. Bunning did not do that.
Standing up to the other party requires little or no courage. They’re already not voting for, what do you have to lose?
Again, if “protecting the citizens is the main responsibility of gov’t,” and if pursuing that main responsibility must be done “over and above budget questions,” then if it were in fact true that more people die each year because they lack medical insurance than die from terrorist attacks, would you agree that it is the responsibility of government, regardless of budget questions, to protect those citizens?
Report comment to moderator
That was poorly worded.
I do not mean that they supported overspending as such. I mean that they (the majority of self-identifying conservatives) supported the programs that required overspending, and they did not level significant criticism at the cost.
In other words, a solid majority of angry budget hawks during the Obama administration were strangely silent during the Bush administration. Or even actively supporting his costly programs.
Report comment to moderator
JJF wrote; “Standing up to your own party requires moral courage.”
Maybe, if there is integrity and honest conviction in your stand. Otherwise, it’s not morally courageous at all.
But Senator Bunning’s stand was a notch above merely standing for or against his party. Bunning was standing for honesty and congress keeping its word, regardless of party. Bunning was standing for something so right that BOTH parties condemned him and failed to support him.
THAT is moral courage.
Report comment to moderator
God bless the one man in the senate who managed to even approach the standard of honesty as a pollitician — Senator Bunning.
Report comment to moderator
The full Cheney quote is “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer
Report comment to moderator
All the crying about the long past Bush administration is showing that many leftists know that men like Bunning are dead right in this case. But they don’t want to talk about this case.
Report comment to moderator
The Dems were trying to get this spending bill passed (on yet more BORROWED money) by unanimous consent. Bunning made it non-unanimous (his right) and all the Dems had to do in response was put it to an up or down vote or just be willing to use the remaining stimulous money for this. But Bunning did NOT filibuster. I think he was right to make the point he did.
Report comment to moderator
There is a part of COBRA that simply forces companies to sell former employees insurance at full price plus 3% for a year and a half after the employee leaves. Not all bad.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!