Addicted to government
Last weekend as America celebrated the 234th anniversary of its independence from Britain, there was a reminder of how increasingly dependent too many Americans have become on our government.
The New York Times headline read: “Illinois Stops Paying Its Bills, but Can’t Stop Digging Hole.”
The Land of Lincoln has become a land of mounting debt: $5.01 billion to be exact. That may not seem like much compared to the growing federal debt—calculated on the National Debt Clock at midday July 4 at $13,189,792,856,331.20—but as the late Illinois Republican Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen is reputed (but never proven) to have said, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”
Illinois’ comptroller, Daniel W. Hynes, says the $5.01 billion is what the state owes to schools, rehabilitation centers, child care, the state university, and he told The New York Times, “[I]t’s getting worse every single day.” He calls the state’s inability to pay for essential services “obscene.”
The real obscenity—in Illinois, California, New York, and especially Washington, D.C., is an inability to live within the means taxpayers provide. Despite record high taxes in these states and more coming at the federal level, government never has enough of our money. But it isn’t all government’s fault. Too many Americans have come to rely on government to take care of them and government has passed the point where it can do so any longer.
Politicians, whose sole aim is re-election, behave like enabling parents, giving the children whatever they want hoping for “love” in return, or in this case, votes. The obituary of Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said he served more time in Congress than anyone else. That, too, is an obscenity. The Founders did not intend public service to become self-service.
The definition of “addiction” best describes our increasing reliance on government: “Complete physiological need for and use of a habit-forming substance (heroin, nicotine, or alcohol), characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal.” Just substitute “government” for the drugs and “psychological” for “physiological” and you have characterized our addiction to government. There are toll-free hotlines for drug addicts who wish to get clean. Who do you call to break free of an addiction to government? Certainly not the politicians; they’re the pushers.
This is classic co-dependency. Politicians tell people what they want to hear and voters elect them out of a sense of entitlement to other people’s money. If you are successful and resist, you are called greedy, uncaring, and a Republican! This class warfare has enriched the politicians who practice it, but it is impoverishing America.
Too many expect too much from government and too little from themselves. It used to be the other way around, but concepts such as initiative, self-control, frugality, persistence, honor, integrity, and virtue went out about the time baby boomers began their cultural counterinsurgency.
The reason so few jobs are being created in the private sector (the labor force is shrinking and unemployment is more than 10 percent, if those who have given up looking for work are included) is because government has grown too big and is strangling the private sector that is uncertain about the cost of Obamacare and tax hikes.
The progressives want more reliance on government and less self-reliance. But this is not what America needs. Republicans, should they regain a majority in Congress this fall, and the White House in 2012, must have a serious talk with their fellow countrymen. We can’t go on like this. We can’t keep spending and taxing. We must stop asking our country to do more for us and begin doing more for ourselves.
Is there a visionary who will say and then do such things, regardless of the political consequences? He (or she) could quote Thomas Jefferson: “To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.”
© 2010 Tribune Media Services Inc.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top18 Comments to “Addicted to government”
“Is there a visionary who will say and then do such things, regardless of the political consequences?”
I doubt there’s an individual politician with the fortitude. And if they somehow have the fortitude to speak out, their fellow congressmen, the media, and the citizen dependents will drown them out…
Report comment to moderator
Cal Thomas: We can’t go on like this. We can’t keep spending and taxing. We must stop asking our country to do more for us and begin doing more for ourselves.
Is there a visionary who will say and then do such things, regardless of the political consequences?
Frank: Yes, there is.
And he did.
And he suffered those political consequences — at the hands of those who pay lip service to “smaller government.”
Here is what Cal Thomas wrote about him on Jan. 17, 2008 (sorry, the ALL CAPS is Cal’s):
The thing Cal failed to mention was the other (and IMV, more likely) reason Paul wouldn’t get the nomination:
His staunch non-interventionism.
Report comment to moderator
Obama’s presidency will be know for the massive shift from the private sector to the public sector. Nearly all the jobs Obama created were in the public sector.
Federal workers earn far more, have much higher salaries and benefits than an equivalent private sector worker and they are almost never fired. While the economy tanks, public employees are living high on the hog.
Report comment to moderator
Frank beat me to it.
Ron Paul did stick to asmall government philosophy — including its necessary corollary of a non-interventionist foreign policy — and he was widely lampooned by mainstream Republicans (including most on this blog) for it.
I’d like to remind Cal Thomas that a Republican president with a Republican Congress took a $450 billion surplus and turned it into a $1 trillion deficit. Republicans have shown themselves willing to cut off unemployment benefits, but not willing to cut a dime of defense spending, even when the Secretary of Defense calls for it.
It’s not fiscal responsibility to cut spending on programs you never liked anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, I personally doubt either of those is a very big part of the reason Paul wasn’t the nominee. I’d say a combination of factors, but I’d add the following:
-the sense that he was unelectable
-the fact that most Republicans in the last election were actually voting against Obama rather than “for” anybody, and voting for Paul did not seem like the best way to vote against Obama (related to #1–nobody wanted to do anything at all to “help” Obama)
-the sense that he was a nerd (and not attractive to the voter who was choosing the candidates)
-lack of much of any awareness of him at all
-miscellaneous other reasons
Report comment to moderator
“This is classic co-dependency. Politicians tell people what they want to hear and voters elect them out of a sense of entitlement to other people’s money. If you are successful and resist, you are called greedy, uncaring, and a Republican!”
If anything, it gets you called a libertarian. Republicans elect leaders to spend “other peoples’ money” as well. For instance, on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
“The reason so few jobs are being created in the private sector is because government has grown too big and is strangling the private sector that is uncertain about the cost of Obamacare and tax hikes.”
That’s one opinion. Not backed up by this article, of course, but its an opinion. My opinion is that too many people overextended themselves during the boom times, or are worried about the future, and have consequently implemented their own personal “austerity measures”. Less spending = less domestic demand = less reason to add new jobs.
As for candidates, I voted for Paul in 2008 but would probably not do so again. Too much stock in conspiracy theories, too inflexible on immigration. Seems the only folks I would feel comfortable voting for aren’t interested in politics. They either work for think tanks or are economists. Given I live in a heavily red state, however, my vote in the general presidential election is pretty meaningless. I have to make it count in one of the primaries.
Report comment to moderator
I have sometimes wondered if the parties aren’t engaged in some sort of Orwellian conflict: keep the people busy while in fact you work toward the same goal. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, etc.
That’s probably silly. I don’t think you can ever get what you want in politics.
Report comment to moderator
Over at City-Journal dot com they ran a great story about how the govt unions in California exert so much control. You can retire at 55 from California state jobs and begin drawing 95% of your pay. So many businesses are fleeing across the state line.
The article is called “The Beholden State”
George Meany of the AFLCIO warned against unionization of bureaucrats. He was sooooooo right.
Report comment to moderator
So how do we get less government if we only elect people who create more, despite promises to the contrary?
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul’s son, Rand Paul, is in a close Senate race in Kentucky. There was a recent PPP poll showing him tied with Jack Conway, although that was very likely misleading, as Democrats made up 52% of the sample, whereas in 2008, they were like 47 or 48%. There is NO WAY the Democrats turn out as well as they did in ‘08, let alone better. So although it’ll be close, I think Paul will pull it out.
But my point: Paul’s hard-line libertarianism has created problems for him, and his father is even more hard-line. Both have their problems with conspiracy theories, etc. If Rand can barely win in a conservative state in a conservative year like this, just think of how badly Ron Paul would have been destroyed in ‘08 nationally.
Report comment to moderator
For a true libertarian to become President, he would either have to lie his way into office like Obama did or the American public would need to become honest and informed about politics.
Instead Americans treat political parties like sports teams to cheer for and rivals to hate. Americans (especially of the liberal persuasion) tend to defend every policy of their party and excoriate every policy of the opposing party, even if the policies are identical.
Report comment to moderator
I hardly think Americans are addicted if anything they have the strongest aversion to good goverance after all they elect Republicans who seek to shrink the gov’t to the size of a bathtub. The Republicans like to starve the beast but also like to use gov’t as a cash cow for their pet causes and/or personal benefit hence the “credit card” is still being used despite cutting the allowance (taxes).
Too many Americans have come to rely on government to take care of them and government has passed the point where it can do so any longer.
I find it strange that Cal Thomas believes the US gov’t has exceeded its ability to care for Americans when other industrial countries have a far more extensive welfare state. Is he claiming that the US is less capable?
Despite record high taxes in these states and more coming at the federal level, government never has enough of our money.
When did the US reinstate the 1960s 91% tax rate for the highest income bracket? That would be the record for highest taxes.
Republicans, should they regain a majority in Congress this fall, and the White House in 2012, must have a serious talk with their fellow countrymen. We can’t go on like this. We can’t keep spending and taxing.
Since the Republicans ran up a huge defecit from 2001 to 2008 what makes you thing this time will be any different? The Republicans are hardly the paragons of good governance instead they like to bleed the gov’t dry of any income while spending like drunken sailors. To use a household analogy, Republicans prefer to cut back at work to part time (about 10 hours a week) but spend with a credit card.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with you HRW about the Republicans, that’s why I voted for Ron Paul in the primary, and didn’t vote for McCain. You gotta vote for the individual person, not the party.
Report comment to moderator
HRW #12 “Since the Republicans ran up a huge deficit from 2001 to 2008 what makes you thing this time will be any different?”
Good question. It is a matter of degrees, the lesser of evils. Here is a comparison of deficit spending under Bush and Obama as projected by the CBO. Obama
Here is a fascinating and illustrative Budget Chart Book which explains where America is heading financially in pictures.
Report comment to moderator
MATT Y. (10): Both [Ron Paul and Rand Paul] have their problems with conspiracy theories, etc.
Frank: Many in the MSM (and not-so-MSM) have tried to tar them with that accusation. I would like you to substantiate that assertion by citing their own words to that effect.
Some of the Pauls’ supporters may “have their problems with conspiracy theories,” but that’s not what you asserted.
Examples, please?
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass writes:
I think you’re partly right, but you’ve missed the larger picture – nearly a quarter of our population is out of work…. Many of these people didn’t CHOOSE
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass writes:
I think you’re partly right, but you’ve missed the larger picture – nearly a quarter of our population is out of work…. Many of these people didn’t CHOOSE
Report comment to moderator
What the heck?!!! Now how did I post twice, even before I was ready to post?
….Many of these people didn’t CHOOSE to go on an austerity budget, it was forced on them because They. Don’t. Have. A. Job.
It is true that too many people “overextended themselves” if you mean by that they ran up debt, and had no savings. Savings are (were) at an all time low, and debt was at an all time high.
And it wasn’t just individuals, corporate, and national debt were at an all time high. Unfortunately for us, our stupid politicians don’t seem to notice it’s time to cut back, and have run the national debt up until it’s nearly the size of our GDP. Now that’s just embecilic.
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!