Here is the problem as I see it: Americans want two things at the same time. On the one hand, "we" want good schools, police officers, fire stations, mail, well-maintained roads and bridges, an unbeatable military, a 'smart grid,' environmental protections, and a strong social safety net that includes housing, medical care, and food security. We want NPR, community grants, scientific research, FEMA, the CIA, the FBI, and NASA. On the other hand...we don't want to pay for it. Or, to be more specific, we don't want to pay for the things that we don't want to pay for. The schizophrenia of surveys over the decades have been remarkable: We the People balk at cutting nearly every program offered by local, state, and federal government ("Not that one! It's so important!") but we also react with rage when we are told that we, personally, need to pay for them through tax revenue. (Wanting other people to pay--'We Are the 99%!' is just the latest iteration--is also quite American).
One of my favorite sci-fi novels of all time is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein. Heinlein coined the phrase, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch," abbreviated as TANSTAAFL, and he was correct: you want Social Security? Pay for it. Stealth fighters? Pay for them. Federal housing projects? Pony up. An EPA? $$$. It goes on and on and on. People say they want all of these things, but they essentially want them for free, or--better still--they want someone else to foot the bill.
As a nation, we face a choice with regard to our national government. We can either have high taxes and high services, or low taxes and low services. We can't have both. You can't cut and spend; it's insanity. Since 2000, through the era of George Bush II, and right up until today with the Obama administration, we have spent like drunken sailor on shore leave (a state I am personally familiar with), and wracked up a national debt the likes of which our nation has never seen. We are trillions of dollars in debt with no relief on the horizon. The amount we are paying on interest alone is staggering, and should we no longer be the safest bet in the world, we will pay even more in interest as other nations find safer harbors to park their cash in. On top of that Keynesian nightmare, our entitlement programs--Medicare in particular, but Social Security as well--will consume more and more of the government's revenues, leaving few choices other than raising taxes, cutting services, or assuming even more debt. Even if we tax the rich at higher rates, even if the economy grows vigorously (which I find unlikely, sad to say), even if we institute a value added tax, or a national sales tax, or whatever else is being floated around out there...it will not be enough. This is not my opinion, people: it's just plain old boring math. Washington is spending too much. It is utterly unsustainable. Period.
The question is, what can we do about it?
I am far from an economist. I'm not even good at math, but I can read, and think, and analyze the problem. In my opinion, what we need to do is this: reduce the size and scope of Washington dramatically. Go back to the primacy of the states; let them figure out how to do many of the things that Washington is currently failing to do. Return to Constitutional government. Restore the republic. This problem that we face--an ever expanding, endlessly voracious, bottomless pig of a government--is the creation of both Democrats and Republicans, and has come into being over the past 80 years. We can't fix this over night. Likewise, it's important to recognize that the programs and spending that are breaking our nation's backbone weren't designed with nefarious intent (a place where Mr. Beck and I disagree): FDR was facing an unimaginable financial and social crisis when he crafted the New Deal. President Johnson was looking at 5 and 6% yearly growth in our economy; why wouldn't he think Washington could pay for everyone's medical care and win a war on poverty? President Obama, in early 2009, was staring into the abyss of another Great Depression. The designers of these programs were not bad people; they simply couldn't see the future.
(George Bush II, on the other hand, cut taxes then put two wars and a new prescription drug benefit on our nation's credit card. His administration and their allies in Congress were profligate spenders. He deserves our scorn and condemnation for his shortsightedness far more than President Obama does for trying to stave off economic collapse with an expensive stimulus plan).
Well, the future is now. Here we are. It's just math. And the clock is ticking. We don't have decades to solves these issues. In eight years, when my oldest daughter is going to be a freshman in high school, Medicare--all by itself--is going to consume 92% of federal tax revenue. 92%! Right now, this moment, our federal debt is equal to our GDP. It will never be easier than it is today to address these issues. The answer, in my opinion, is to de-fund Washington in an orderly yet speedy fashion, and let the people in the states decide what they want to do. Follow the Constitution. Let states become the laboratories of innovation with regard to social spending programs.
As the man said in Full Metal Jacket, "It's a giant shit sandwich, and we all get to take a bite."
The good news is that none of what I've discussed above will happen. None of the current Republicans running for President (with the possible exception of Ron Paul) will ever talk about these 'third rail' issues. Large businesses and corporations want tax loopholes, corporate welfare, and influence over legislation, so the GOP isn't going to touch any of this. The Democrats want votes, so they'll promise everyone anything they want: a house, a doctor, a check, you name it. There is an old saying from the Romans, and I am afraid that it is relevant for my beloved United States of America: the mills of the gods grind slow, but they grind exceeding fine.
We are being ground, slowly but surely. America is not inevitable. Talk about an inconvenient truth.
(I suppose I should mention, I liked this book. I like Glenn Beck. I don't see Progressives hiding behind every tree, nor do I think there are vast, conspiratorial networks planning one world government hiding behind the mask of...well, everyone. What I find in books like this, on both the left and the right, are sins of omission rather than outright fabrications. Mr. Beck tells many truths in his books, but he doesn't tell everything that's true. The more I read politics and history on both sides of the political divide, the more capable I am of identifying gaps in the authors' arguments. I found much to agree with in Broke, not because I read it here for the first time, but because I've read it in so many other places, too. With that said, like most political ideologues, Mr. Beck can be characterized not only by what he includes, but by what he leaves out. None the less: good book from a good guy.)