Finding happiness
In 2008, 60 Minutes visited Denmark to report on a survey of international happiness conducted by Leicester University in England that concluded Danes are among the happiest people on Earth. The reason? They have low expectations and thus, as Morley Safer noted, “are rarely disappointed.”
This ought to be a Republican Party theme in the November and subsequent elections. If our expectations about politicians and government are lowered, we will then start expecting less from them and more from ourselves, then our prospects for happiness will likely be much improved.
Take spending. Clearly we can’t go on like this. People should ask their grandparents if their parents told them, “We can’t afford it” when they asked for certain things. In this generation, the question of whether we can afford something is rarely asked.
Our massive debt has produced an unease that America may be at greater risk from economic collapse than from terrorists. Excessive debt is terror by other means.
Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation has performed a useful service by analyzing the 10-year budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which puts the deficit at $6.2 trillion. Riedl says that’s a phony figure because the CBO is forced to make assumptions based on what Congress tells it. The true baseline deficit, says Riedl—based on a continuation of current spending and tax policies—amounts to $13 trillion over the next decade.
If ever there was a time when “we can’t afford it” actually means something, this is that time.
Here are Riedl’s conclusions:
- Even as war spending phases out and the economy recovers, the projected budget deficit never drops below $1 trillion, and reaches nearly $2 trillion by 2020.
- The national debt held by the public is set to surpass 100 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020.
- By 2020, half of all income tax revenues will go toward paying interest on a $23 trillion national debt.
- Federal spending per household, which has risen from $25,000 to nearly $30,000 over the past three years, would top $38,000 by 2020. The national debt per household, which was $52,000 before the recession, would approach $150,000 by 2020 (all adjusted for inflation).
- Even if all tax cuts are extended, revenues will still surpass the 18 percent of GDP historical average by 2020. The reason the deficit will surge 6 percent of GDP above its average is because spending will surge to 6 percent of GDP above its average.
Read the entire analysis and weep for yourself and for future generations.
Some Republicans, like Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, are offering credible and thoughtful ways to get us out of this mess. Will the Republican leadership follow, or will it simply try to manage the big government liberal Democrats created, cutting only a little around the edges?
Lowering expectations of government and politicians is only half the equation. We must then raise expectations for ourselves. “You can do it” is more than a rousing assurance from a parent after the training wheels come off and we ride a two-wheeler for the first time, it’s the ratification of the individual’s power over the weakening power of the state.
Do we really need all we consume? After buying it, how much of it really satisfies? If we look to government to care for us, rather than looking to ourselves and to family, the time will come when government won’t be able to, healthcare will be rationed and our lives will be deemed unworthy of continuing.
Thomas Jefferson said we had the right to pursue happiness. He didn’t tell us where to find it. Lowering expectations of government and politicians and raising our own expectations is where happiness—or at least contentment—can be found.
How many other Republicans, besides Paul Ryan and too few of his colleagues, will tell us what we need to hear? For the first time in a very long time, the public may be ready for some strong medicine.
© 2010 Tribune Media Services Inc.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top15 Comments to “Finding happiness”
They have low expectations and thus, as Morley Safer noted, “are rarely disappointed.”
—-
Is that like, “Learn the piano for $29.95 this weekend”?
Then, on Monday, due to low expectations, “I’m happy I found out that learning the piano was hard.”
“Next weekend, I’m going to try the violin seminar”.
“I’m so happy!”
Report comment to moderator
I heard “we can’t afford it” when I was growing up, but I’m not sure it’s the best thing to communicate biblically to kids. This could be interpreted that if we could afford it, we would buy it (no matter what it is). But also it could mean (to a kid) that God does not provide.
Perhaps it’s best to communicate that this is not what God wants for us right now. Contentment is the better lesson.
“Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.” (Php 4:11-12)
Report comment to moderator
Is it a need or a want?
That question alone has stifled many a purchase in our household, occasionally followed by, “if it’s a want, what good will come from owning it?”
Our elected officials should have been asking questions like these a long time ago. And the answer, “it’s a need because I won’t get re-elected if I don’t give in to to this blackmail,” is plain wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Cal Thomas wrote: “Our massive debt has produced an unease that America may be at greater risk from economic collapse than from terrorists. Excessive debt is terror by other means.”
I think we are at risk of an economic collapse, but I would still not use the word “terror” for our debt and our current economic policies. “Government greed”, “legalized theft”, “exploitation”, “road to slavery”, “fraud”, “tyranny”, “selfishness”, “irresonsible”, ” social injustice”? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. But not “terror.” That’s another thing in today’s parlance.
But we are indeed being placed at risk in many ways by the one-party-rule (all Democrat) we have foolishly voted into existance.
Report comment to moderator
Many leftists like to refer to conservative Christians with the phrase; “Taliban wing of the Republican Party.” I consider that intellectually dishonest and mean-spirited. So I will not compare the leftists in charge of our government today with terrorists. If they were, our military should be fighting them here. They are not.
But too many of them are socialists, neo-Marxists, homosexualists, overly greedy, profoundly unethical and corrupt, in my opinion. And the worst thing for us is that they are too stubborn to admit they are wrong and reverse course for the good of this nation. They need to be opposed politically, not violently. They will have to be voted out.
Report comment to moderator
#5
“They will have to be voted out.”
This, of course, is assuming that there are enough citizens with enough discernment to see the pie-in-the-sky promises that gov. promises — ain’t!!!!
Judging from the many adherents to the socialist trend now so popular in this country, I’m not sure there are enough discerning folk still around. to reverse this trend.
“And the worst thing for us is that they are too stubborn to admit they are wrong and reverse course for the good of this nation.”
How very true!!! So many would rather see the country fail (along with themselves) than admit that they really screwed up by putting the “zero” in office; the old “PRIDE” thing!!
Report comment to moderator
“They have low expectations”
They also have no Diversity. No Acorn syndicates. No 12 million illegal aliens raiding their Health Care, Education, and Justice Dollars. They can also depend on America for their National Defense.
And their President actually likes them!
Report comment to moderator
From the bullets above . . .
“Federal spending per household, which has risen from $25,000 to nearly $30,000 over the past three years . . .”
So the federal government has spent more money for this “household” than I myself have spent? (And lest you argue that I’m a household of one and undoubtedly they spend less for me, my sister is in a household of seven, and her household and mine together have has less after-tax income than $50 or 60,000. Of course, neither household accepts any government money and thus still don’t actually cost that much, but still, this is outrageous!!)
Report comment to moderator
To set your hope and future in Man means surrendering your freedom and pursuit of happiness to others. Man will disappoint when you depend on him, especially if Man happens to be faithless, law-educated, government officials in Washington DC.
It is no wonder that God did not want to grant the Jews their wish for a king. God’s warning of what they will do is exactly what we have occurring as we create kings in America.
Report comment to moderator
#6 – The only way for there to be enough citizens with enough discernment to see the weaknesses in the most dangerous and disingenuous candidates is for people like you, Freedom Nut, and me to get out and help them see it. Find a candidate you support and volunteer, make calls, get more people registerd, walk precincts, donate money, put up signs, and so on. Then if the citizens show no discernment, you can complain in good faith.
I go in next week to do my part.
If there is no candidate at all that you can support over the others, then grieve and delegate all politcal action and results to God and pray.
Report comment to moderator
Cal Thomas seems to imply that extending the Bush tax cuts have had and will have a net positive effect on our debt (because revenues will supposedly rise enough that taxes collected on those greater revenues will outweigh the money lost by lowering the rate).
But even Bush’s own economists did not say that the tax cut would pay for itself. And the CBO consistently reports that the Bush tax cuts account for a staggering percentage of our national deficit.
If you are concerned about lowering the deficit, repeal the Bush tax cuts. (I’d agree with Alan Greenspan and say repeal all of them, eventually. But I know that’s not politically tenable.)
Report comment to moderator
Deficit spending has always been a really bad idea, but please, don’t pretend it’s a Democratic phenomenon. It started in earnest under Reagan and has been a fact ever since no matter which party is in control. (Although Clinton did leave office with a projected surplus.)
If we seriously want to pay off the debt and stop borrowing against our future, we’re going to have to raise taxes and cut spending dramatically, and I don’t think either party has the political will to do it in anything more than a token way that ultimately won’t matter. (One party argues that the programs the other party likes are the ones to cut, and the other party argues back the same way. When leaders emerge courageous enough to cut spending on their own favored programs as well as the other side’s, then we might get somewhere. But I don’t see that happening.)
Eventually we’re going to collapse under the weight of the debt, Thomas is right about that. And nobody, R or D or I, can prevent it. Tough times ahead.
Report comment to moderator
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities had this little blurb in 2005:
Conan has partisan blinders on.
* Who has even claimed that deficit spending is [only?] a Democrat phenomenon? It’s not.
* Congress holds the purse strings. The worse deficit spending has taken place under Democrat controled congresses (but Republicans have been guilty too).
* It did not begin with Reagan either, in fact or in earnest. But it did happen under Reagan. Although deficit spending was undesireable to him, it was part of his effective strategy to actually win the cold war against the Soviets without firing a shot. If it was ever worth it, is was that time–but reasonable people can disagree.
With regard to Obama, the point is that obscene deficit spending has grown to grotesque proportions under his reign that were inconceivable even to the most guilty big-spending Republicans of the past.
Report comment to moderator
If we want to make progress on backing off of spending and paying down the debt, we MUST look to the growth and empowerment of the American provate sector. The government caused this problem but can do NOTHING to solve it. The private sector must be empowered. This calls for the gov’t to get out of its way and reduce the heavy burdens they have put on the backs of the private sector so they can grow and get our economy back on track and get unemployment rates down again to the 5% levels we saw for most of the Bush administration. More people working means MORE tax-payers!
Charging the hard-working free-market private sector with more taxes calls to mind the picture of a turnip and someone trying hard to sueeze blood from it.
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!