How different would things be?

How much different would the government look if it was understood that every dollar spent represents the hard work of another American? That no matter how important you think those programs are, or how helpful they may be, they come at a cost to someone else. This isn't to say the government is unnecessary, or to say we shouldn't help our fellow man. It's to say that in all aspects of government, the taxpayer should be considered and respected. The dollar spent has a name, it has a past, and while the government has a right to take it, it shouldn't take it halfheartedly.

How different would the debt arguments be if people realized that every dollar spent wasn't just the hard work of another American, but the hard work of our future generations? Some day the debt will reach a point where paying on the interest rates will no longer be sufficient. At some point the debt has to be paid down, and the government will have to decide between taxing the citizens more, or reducing spending on programs. Those programs may serve a great purpose, they may be needed, but far from achievable. It's now expected of my generation to support every poorly structured government program until it's collapse. To pay for the Social Security and Medicare of Baby Boomers until they bankrupt our country and then what? How long will it take to pay off the debts accrued? How many generations? What will they use to help the old or the poor? What will they get in return for a lifetime of paying into a system that no longer exists?

These programs are dangerous to America, and yet trying to confront them now brings out political statements that the right is trying to starve out the old and poor. Reform could make them sustainable, but it's political suicide to do so. It's a joke, but carries serious consequences.

The war on poverty has actually increased poverty. Not only are we losing the war, but for some reason the government wants to justify further growth of these programs. The suggestion of reform earns you the label of heartless, greedy, and/or racist. However, if we were to respect the taxpayer we would structure these programs to lift people out of poverty, to learn what skills they have, to educate them for jobs, and leave them in a financial situation that would increase the number of taxpayers in our country. I'd like to argue that an overwhelming majority of taxpayers would support a system that helped people out for a time, and put them on a path to success.

I'd argue that every government program, including the military, needs to be looked at. The desired goals need to be agreed on, and the necessary structures established. There has to come a point where enough is enough. How big do we need our military presence to be throughout the world? How many wars do we have to fight? How do we pick the ones we do?

How different would our country be if we created these programs to help out our fellow man instead of entertaining every political whim of our elected officials? How different would we structure our programs if we considered sustainability and functionality over next years election or good intentions? How often would we have to raise the debt ceiling? How often would we suffer through another financial crisis?

I'd like to see the day where these questions are answered, long before we are forced to answer them.