No. This is not about race, ethnic background, national origin, or economic status. It's not about any other of a number of discrimination labels that opponents of balanced spending and honest fiscal accounting would like to label spending reform efforts with.

We advocate for governments that do not overburden their communities, states, and nations with unsustainable debt levels, benefit obligations they do not know how to meet, and the reality of ever increasing taxation levels. Those systems are best at offering an economic platform that citizens from all backgrounds have more opportunities to thrive within.

It is actually not about rights. It's about sustainability. We're near a failure point, and its about to get worse. See Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages, 08 March 2011, CNBC

The question of reducing benefits would be much easier if it were about rights. It is, instead, about facts. It is, instead, about the math. It is, partly, about unexpected circumstances. And, importantly, the betrayal of promises is, unfortunately, about fraud, either intentional or unintentional. Generally, the circumstances required for many of our state, county, and municipal governments, and the federal government, to have been able to adequately meet their promised obligations perpetually actually could not ever realistically have been expected to occur.

Those promises need to be walked back because the notion that we ever could have afforded them was a fraud. Even though they may have sounded nice to have. No one understood then, nor do they understand now, how to make good on them under realistic scenarios.

Promises that are only delivered using "pay-as-you-go income streams" rather than adequately funded annuities that are invested prudently over time generally fail. They do fine for those who are "early in", and "early recipients", and collapse later on as the number of beneficiaries grow, but the number of new contributors does not. In other circumstances, we call these Ponzi schemes. Social Security, for example, has been understood as a Ponzi scheme in need of reform for over 40 years.

Once the math reaches the failure point, there is really nothing that can be done to make all the beneficiaries whole. Benefits must be reduced to match the funding available for the program. It is not so much a choice, or a preference, or even a matter or rights. It is a matter of actual fact.

Formally, the problem of spending has little to do with the wealthy, or those who have wealth, or those who would like to acquire wealth and set about to plan for it ... other than that they are seen as a source of tax revenue. We have seen that governments spend beyond their identified revenue, sometimes WAY beyond their identified revenue. Thus, especially in the case of our federal government, spending bills are passed without any pragmatic concern at all with regard to how the spending will be paid for. Despite the concerned and responsible sounding rhetoric.

How does one pass a budget with trillion dollar deficits, and plans for trillion dollar deficits as far as can be reasonably planned for, and pretend to have strategic planning concern, or restraint? Honestly, it ain't happening. At least not anymore. Based on actions, not rhetoric.

Aside from the fact that there isn't enough wealth to tax to balance our current deficit, even if we taxed it at 100%, the sad practice of runaway spending can be summed up by the classic lament, "Son, if I gave her a million, she'd spend two!" Check the video at left. The unspun numerical facts are an epiphany starting at minute 2.

Who should pay? Why? How much each? How do we all pay for our bar tab?

An insightful answer to these questions is suggested in the following tale:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer, and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

• The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
• The fifth would pay $1.
• The sixth would pay $3.
• The seventh would pay $7.
• The eighth would pay $12.
• The ninth would pay $18.
• The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

• The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
• The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
• The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
• The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
• The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
• The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

That's a big question. The details could fill books. Perhaps we can answer the question simply:

• Political leaders get that way by either assuming, or being given power. This does not need to be considered from a perspective of corrupt intentions, although it could be. For our purposes, we'll just go with human nature.
  
  
• In a democracy, most often political leadership is voted in.
  
  
• When we decide who we want to vote for, many of us vote for the politicians who tell us what we want to hear. There are many well meaning politicians who tell us what we want to hear, and many well intentioned politicians who tell us what we do not want to hear. The latter generally don't win the electoral popularity contest.
  
  
• The majority of the electorate do not have the time, inclination, or expertise to study and appreciate government policy and program issues at a systemic level. In short, we elect politicians to do that. So that we don't have to. It's convenient, but it also means we often do not have the background necessary to appreciate what the costs, implementation, and benefits of government programs should look like. We generally take a "results oriented" perspective. We wait to see what happens, and then vote appropriately next time to adjust.
  
  
• Unfortunately, a results oriented approach is backwards looking. It's fine if the failures that can result are relatively small. When failures can have catastrophic results, a "forward looking" approach is required.
  
  
• A forward looking approach is not the same as deciding, "What do I hope will happen?" Rather, a forward looking approach assesses what is wanted, generates a realistic set of assumptions and expectations that can be defended based on past experience and current knowledge, figures out what it will cost to get there, what will be required to mitigate risks, and then proceeds with whatever portions of the project are actually funded. It does not create Ponzi schemes, unless, of course, that is the actual intention!
  
  
• Since the average voter cannot have the background to be forward looking for every government project being proposed by the politicians wanting his or her vote, the average voter, taking a results oriented approach by necessity must then use some other metric to decide if a new or expanded project is a good idea or not. Those are usually:
  • Vote the pocketbook (how will it cost me or benefit me, specifically?)
  • Trust by rhetoric or posture
  
  
• We are now at a point where the "results" are coming in with regard to the sustainability of current benefit and spending projects.

Figuring it out somehow means making the math work. The math works when spending is reduced below the level of government revenue, and government revenues are kept low relative to overall economic activity (total government taxation at all levels representing 15-20% of the economy or lower).

There are no solutions to our problem that can be shown to be sustainable that include continuing to run the budget deficits and continuing to over-promise benefits as we have done to date. None. No plan has ever been made available that shows how this can be done. Rhetoric is not a plan. Hope ... is unfortunately ... not a strategy.

But, if you have one, or find one, send it in. We'll post it. Make sure it is credible, and systematically consistent. "Make believe" and "what if" and "if only" need not apply.

Yes. But we will always want more than we can afford. We will always feel we need more than we are getting. And, we will always be able to assign an ethical or moral argument to any spending initiative that we want to propose. We will always be able to assert that a spending cut is being unkind, or negative, or callous, or worse.

YES, WE CAN cut spending to any of the programs mentioned above, and more. Many times, those cuts can be met with improvements in efficiency and reductions in waste and fraud with little impact on mission. Often, there may be impact to a program's mission. In that case, the current level of the mission is unaffordable, regardless of its noble purpose.

In the end, it is not ethical, moral, or noble, to bankrupt and restrict the options of those who come after us simply because we are unwilling to do with less ourselves today?

And, in the end, we are human. And, we are American. We will adapt. We will be up for spending reductions in any of the programs that are important to us if we decide we want to be.