I came across something interesting today at the Cato @ Liberty blog. The relevant part is below:
Ever cross your mind that there’s a reason government programs increase over time? I’ll clue you in: Programs increase because of public demand.
It’s not rocket science, people want more services. Period. Somebody’s got to pay for them. Hences taxes. Or perhaps borrowing. Or a combination of both. In any event, there’s no evidence people are willing to get along with fewer services.
The situation seems simple to me; so why can’t you ideologues on the far right understand what’s going on. Instead, you simply go on bemoaning the existence of programs and taxes you don’t like.
Actually, we do see what’s going on. Saying that programs increase because of public demand is a bit like saying that sunshine increases because of a lack of clouds. It’s blatantly obvious. Unlike the far left ideologues, however, conservatives realize that just because the public demands something doesn’t make that something a good idea. A child may “demand” a chocolate bar in lieu of a nutritious dinner, but that doesn’t make it a good idea to substitute a proper meal with candy. The idea that whatever we want is inherently good is poisonous to long-term sustainability. it prioritizes short-term planning over the long term and immediate impulse over sober judgment.
Also, with government services the demand is often overstated because the “somebody” who pays is seldom the same “somebody” who benefits; at the very least even when the people who benefit also pay into the pot, they are putting in less than they are taking out. Social Security is an excellent example. Individuals are, on average, withdrawing far more than they have contributed to the system. It continues to receive support, however, because everyone expects that they too will be able to take more out than they have put in. If everyone had to pay for governmentally-administered services in proportion to how they use those services, there would not be nearly as much demand.
It’s a very simple matter: If you promise to provide a service for free or for well below cost, there will always be demand for it. If you continually provide services for free or below cost, however, you must recoup those expenses somehow and simply borrowing or taxing “the rich” is not sustainable because both sources of income will eventually run dry. Whether people are “willing to get along with fewer services” or not is irrelevant. At some point, they will have no choice at all because it will simply not be possible to continue providing services. And that will be a disaster because people will have made long-term plans based on the assumption of those services being available.
In the end, it comes down to the necessity of operating within a budget. An occasional deficit is allowable, but the Bush deficits were not, nor are the (far, far larger) Obama deficits. Yes, balancing the budget will hurt. Sometimes reality hurts, that’s just the way things are.