Giving away the future
Political ·Tuesday July 27, 2010 @ 20:10 EDT (link)
Future promises: how much can legislators give away?
We frequently talk about making our posterity pay (e.g.,
"We are prostituting future generation’s livelihoods by not paying off these debts."), but even anything beyond the current legislative session needs to be reconsidered.
Legislators should have to pay for anything they promise during their term. I.e., if they promise a government union a pension, they have to put real money away in an escrow account for everyone they promise it to, and the promise can only be "We will use this money for that pension" not "No matter how many people are hired by this union, or how the economy changes, they will all get this fancy pension". One could possibly also allow claiming a known revenue stream, but the benefit paid should depend on that stream and (as when I spend my income) it should only be allowed to be allocated once. They can't bind future congresses. Every act needs to be undoable by the next congress, and they should have to explicitly continue to fund it with a bill or it goes away on its own (i.e., a sunset matching the end of the current house term). Perhaps they can fully fund a few pensions, and promise them to n people, but more likely they can partially fund more, and hope that the funding is renewed. Better still, don't promise anything, and make them invest in 401(k)s like the rest of us; better than that, don't tax anything and nobody'll need 401(k)s.
Thomas Sowell concurs with respect to Social Security, which he calls a pyramid scheme (government term is "unfunded liability") in "Social Security: A Fraudulent Pyramid Club":
When an insurance company writes a policy, it has to have enough assets to pay out what it promises. Otherwise the company can be declared bankrupt and its officials can go to jail. An insurance company that had the same benefits, premiums, and reserves as the Social Security system would be shut down by court order and its managers led away in handcuffs to face charges of fraud. … The larger question is, why do we continue to allow politicians to write laws promising benefits that they have not raised money to pay for?
Madoff was a piker compared to the state. See also: Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority"—in a similar vein, we can't make contracts that bind our descendants. Of course, for voluntaryists, "representatives" cannot make promises binding on anyone either, unless they agreed to that specifically. But requiring spending bills—and maybe every law on the books—to be explicitly, and individually (no omnibus bills!) renewed (rewritten, as fresh bills) at the start of each legislative session would be a positive step forward, and get rid of so many of the present problems of having bribed (in the present particular cases) the venal thugs of various government unions in good times with perpetual payouts, and being on the hook for them in lean times too. It would also lessen the incentive, or increase the cost, to buy off members of congress, since their awards (of stolen goods) would only last for a maximum of two years.
While the best answer to the question we began with is "Nothing at all", forced renewals and true "pay as you go" would definitely be an improvement.
Books finished: Under Heaven.
