Change by the Numbers — A 100-year History

Statistics compiled by Ben Reng, a recent convert to political activism:

Year	Population (millions)	Budget (billions)	Debt (billions)	Balance (billions)
1900	76.2	$20.5	$2	+$0.041
1935	127.0	$73.3	$28	-$3.0
1957	170.0	$81.8	$270	+$2.2
2000	280.0	$1,700	$5,600	-$17.9
2010	310.0	$3,500	$14,000	-$1,400
Increase	4x	170x	7,000x	1,400x

Also noteworthy

1900	No federal income tax; it was considered unconstitutional.
1935	Congress passed the Social Security Act.
1957	Most of the national debt is leftover from World War II and was $2 billion lower than 1956; the last year the total US debt DECREASED.
2000	The Clinton administration fiscal policies brought an end to Reaganomics, the longest sustained period of growth in US history, according to the Heritage Foundation.
2010	The Obama administration's first year budget deficit was four times that of the 2008 deficit, the last Bush budget.

Commentary by Ben Reng:

With a few thoughts of my own.
 

I've spent my life watching from the cheap seats.  I participated in one of the worst entitlement mentalities available:  That I shouldn't have to contribute my effort to my nation's governance.

Our nation wasn't built to work like this.  It wasn't built for passive citizenship.

Like Ben, I spent most of my life barely involved in politics.  Until I was past 40, I never did anything political, except vote.
 

We have a misnomer in this country.  Our nation doesn't elect leaders.  In this country, we have leaders in our churches, in our military, in our businesses and, most of all, in our homes.  In America, we elect representatives.
 

It was not always so:  Remember your high school history classes?  Do the names Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun mean anything to you?  If not, they should.  This was the Great Triumvirate of the US Senate in the 1830s and '40s, the greatest statesmen that chamber ever knew.

For a generation now, conservatives have been content to be Nixon's "Silent Majority."  We've bought into the foolish concept that it's unacceptable to talk about religion, politics, or money in polite company.  We've allowed the media to become dominated by people who do not share our values.
 

We've hesitated to talk to teenagers, in their most intellectually formative years, about our traditional values, for fear of being "uncool."  We've allowed our children to be taught in a system that doesn't reflect our values.  We've lost the ability to understand the math of our economy, and as such have become uncomfortable trying to even teach it to our children.
 

Are we actually afraid to discuss religion, politics or money in "polite company"?  I'm not, anymore.  Of course, it's easy for me because most of the people I hang out with today are also interested in saving this country from oblivion.  It does cause some silent moments at holidays, since I am the only conservative in my family, and one of the few things more important than politics is family harmony.
 

The idea behind this mad pyramid scheme is simple:

Spending money is addicting.  If you translate that to government speak, it runs something like this:  "If we don't spend our whole budget this year, we can't justify asking for more money next year."  Politicians really think this way, and it doesn't matter to them that the American electorate doesn't want it.  Polls bear this out:

Rasmussen Reports – 22 October 2008 – No more stimulus

58% of U.S. voters say more tax cuts will better stimulate the economy than new spending.
32% agree the government should pass another economic stimulus package; 43% disagree.
Men favor new tax cuts over spending 64% to 22%; Women favor tax cuts 54% to 23%.
 

Rasmussen Reports – 19 November 2010 – Cut spending

58% of likely voters say they’d prefer for a candidate who'll work to cut federal spending.
54% think a member of Congress who works to get as much federal money as possible is more interested in improving his reelection chances than in what’s best for his constituents.
67% of mainstream America prefer a candidate who cuts spending.
55% of the political class likes one who goes after it.
 

Pat Toomey, The Wall Street Journal – 24 July 2008 – America Wants Less Pork

54% of general election voters chose the frugal candidate.
29% chose the profligate [spend-thrift] candidate.
 

Dennis Jacobe, Gallup, Inc. – 27 June 2008 – No Income Redistribution

84% of Americans prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions.
13% support taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.
50% of Americans more likely to believe government is doing too much.
43% believe government should do more to solve the country's problems.
 

The bottom line:
 

American's aren't stupid, despite what professional politicians think.  But we have a growing portion of our society that is addicted to government spending.  That portion is loud and well organized and they support politicians who'll sell us out for a few votes.  Sadly, many voters also listen to those voices.

Let's make 2012 a watershed year by drowning out the voices of the few who lie, cheat and steal for political power.  Let us support and elect men and women of character and backbone who will cut the unnecessary and unconstitutional budget items and bring America's fiscal policy back to sanity.

Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.