Dependency Will Destroy Our Republic

Yesterday, The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis Director, Bill Beach, presented at The Heritage Foundation’s weekly Bloggers Briefing. Unfortunately, I was a few minutes late, but the gist of Mr. Beach’s presentation was that the seventh annual Dependency on Government Index shows that this country is increasingly dependent on government. See a primer Mr. Beach wrote for The Foundry here, and the full report here.

I had seen the primer last week, and was confused as to why Beach had written the following:

Most disturbing of all, all of the evidence points to even more rapid increases in dependency ahead, which well could threaten democratic government.

No, of course dependency on government is not good, but if we don’t necessarily correlate dependency with government control- though, of course, they generally go hand-in-hand- how does that destroy the (as Beach put it) democratic underpinnings of our republic?

Beach’s answer was simple (if paraphrased for this post): in order to have a functioning civil society and republic, there had to be an appropriate separation between the public and the private. It made a lot of sense, though admittedly it was more profound when he said it than when I typed it.

The core of Beach’s presentation was terrifying. Not only are we going into incredible debt, we are not solving the entitlement issues so crucial to erasing that debt over time. Add private sector subsidies and bailouts, military overspending, welfare programs etc. we have a perfect storm. As Beach put it, we have 40% of taxpayers not paying taxes. These people vote on how federal money is spent, but have no skin in the game.

Solutions offered by Beach: stop expanding the programs that exist (including making them more efficient); tax reform through expanding the tax base by encouraging fewer taxes paid by each person but more people included in the tax system (thus, with more people having skin in the game, more people will watch how the programs work); and Congress needs to get control of mandatory spending. Other, side solutions include generally living within our means (government-wise) and holding down inflation.

The presentation can be heard here. I think Beach does an excellent job of talking about conservative policy principles as well as showing how conservative philosophical principles will help on the humanitarian level more than dependency programs. I encourage everyone to listen to Beach’s presentation by clicking on the Blog Radio on the top right of the page. It is the first presentation of the Briefing, so just hit play and enjoy. Or, rather, don’t enjoy, but be inspired to step up and become part of the solution.

Media Holding Democrats Accountable on Transparency

Over the last few weeks, there has been talk of not having the traditional “conference” to meld the Senate and House health care reform bills. I laughed off such thoughts, as transparency is something this administration and congressional leaders have been hammered for over the last several months. However, it appears I was wrong. Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) and House Majority Leader Pelosi (D-CA) are setting things up so they will not have to have the conference, and instead get the “conference” bill without a conference.

This is bothersome. However, a number of media sources are doing their job and calling for the Obama administration to open the melding process to the public. (H/T to The Heritage Foundation’s “The Foundry.”) Let’s make our voices heard in support of C-Span’s efforts and make certain Democrats know they should have full transparency in this debate or face the wrath of the voters come November.

Why Not Bail Out Buggywhip Makers?

I’m a little behind the times on this one- I had National Guard duty this past weekend- but late last week Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) supported the idea of bailing out newspapers. As a guy who likes newspapers- you know, printed instead of online- I sympathize with the fact that newspapers are going out of business quickly. Unfortunately for my personal desires, that is part of the beauty of creative destruction. As we improve technology, we eliminate inefficiencies in our system, and that is what newspapers increasingly represent.

There is some argument that losing newspapers would lose the generally quality, in-depth reporting that papers pride themselves on. After all, blogs and other online media are not generally renowned for their quality of reporting or in-depth research; they have other strengths, instead. That said, Huffington Post, Fox News, CNN, The Foundry, CNS News and many other sites and news sources are doing a good job of changing that stereotype through hard-hitting reporting, opinions and interviews. As advertising swings more and more online, I suspect old-fashioned reporters will be doing their fine reporting online instead of on paper more and more often. Best of all, they will be able to do it without the government’s money hanging over their heads, subtly or not-so-subtly influencing every decision that is made.

One other flaw with Waxman’s argument: ?There needs to be a consensus within the media industry and the larger community it serves? before the government acts, Waxman said. ?We have to figure out together how to preserve that kind of reporting.? Which media industry will he stop at? The television industry? The online industry? Talk radio? Newspapers? Magazines? Movies? Pornography? Mixed Martial Arts? CNN’s IReporter? If you bail out one, you open the floodgates to bail out the rest. Who’s to say The Economist is more important to society than Sports Illustrated? Both have large readerships, after all, and both represent industries worth billions to the American economy. They provide valuable news to America’s citizens.

Huffington Post has written numerous pieces this year alone defending the value they bring to news and decrying people like Rupert Murdoch for not adjusting to what consumers want. As much as I hate to say it, its writers are correct. Print newspapers provide news a day late, they update once a day and they are just one more thing to carry. Given their support for environmental legislation such as cap-and-trade and fuel standards, liberals such Waxman should be ecstatic that this is happening. Going online saves trees, lowers emissions from vehicles and saves on printing press use (though the servers would need electricity, which causes some harm), among others. The argument that going online will cause harm to our republic is a false one- who says online sources can’t (or don’t, or won’t) continue to use professional journalists? The transition is from print to online- news is still news, though to be fair Americans prefer shorter, less detailed news articles than we used to. But that has been happening even before Twitter and blogs became household names.