The Era Of Big Government Is Alive And Well
By Tony DiPasquale (06/14/03)
As we speak, a raging debate is taking place in Congress. No, it is not about the affordability of the recent tax cut, nor is it over ways to cut spending in order to reduce the escalating budget deficit. Rather, the argument taking place presently in Congress is over which party can successfully pass a bill to expand Medicare to include prescription drugs, and then convince seniors that they were responsible for the gracious gift.
Currently, a bi-partisan bill — which we all know is a euphemism for Uncle Sam legislating his hand into our pockets — is ready to be voted on by a Senate Committee. Slated with a price tag of approximately $400 billion over the next ten years, this bill would be the most dramatic reform Medicare has experienced in its 38-year history (Curl & Fagan, 2003). It is quite amazing how just a few weeks ago, we were bombarded with all sorts of rhetoric about how we could not possibly afford a meager $350 billion tax cut; that it would have a devastating impact on the deficit. Predictably, no voice can be heard making the same claim for this program. In fact, one Senator who opposed the tax cut on these very principles, Tom Daschle, has claimed that this bill does not go far enough (Curl & Fagan, 2003). Surely if we cannot afford a tax cut, we cannot afford to expand Medicare.
Congress, as typical, just cannot seem to break its spending addiction. Soon we can expect to hear all the emotional arguments on how this program will help seniors. Heck, there may even be some who will go so far as to insist that this will help the economy. Hogwash!
First of all, let us not forget that whenever Congress introduces a new program, they invariably underestimate its costs. Way back in 1966, after spending $3 billion on Medicare, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that spending on Medicare in 1990 would only amount to $12 billion dollars. Well they were a bit off. Actual spending on Medicare in 1990 was $107 billion dollars, or nearly ten-times their projections (Hayward & Peterson, 1993).
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) has stated that if the administration is successful in giving seniors the same benefits offered federal employees as they have proposed, the costs would be closer to $800 billion (Curl & Fagan, 2003). It seems that Republicans are no longer for fiscal responsibility.
But while lawmakers debate on how large to make this new entitlement, seemingly none have concerned themselves with whether or not they have the constitutional authority to enact it. Sadly, this is what our representatives have become; so engrossed in their own re-election, and doing what is politically popular, they no longer take the time to reflect on the ramifications of their actions.
If we can sit idly by while our representatives ignore the constraints put on them by our Constitution, how much longer will it be before they become bold enough to rescind the liberties spelled out in the Bill of Rights? The sad truth is they already have. Today, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are meaningless, and the Second and Fourth are under constant assault. Meanwhile, the First Amendment has become perverted in such a way that it protects all sorts of hedonistic actions, while its ability to defend our religious expression has waned.
Americans must remember that we are a republic and not a democracy; that decisions are to be made through laws and not popular support. If we allow arbitrary laws to trump our Constitution, it will be only a matter of time before our liberties are trumped as well.
[1] Curl, Joseph and Fagan, Amy (2003, June 12). Bush pushes Medicare changes.
The Washington Times Retrieved from: http://dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030611-113006-7450r
[2] Hayward, Steven and Peterson, Erik (1993, January). The Medicare Monster: A Cautionary Tale. Reasononline Retrieved from:
http://reason.com/9301/fe.sh.the.shtml
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tony DiPasquale
