Don't blame Bloomberg

2013-03-16 00:00:00

It is almost universally true that politicians don't lead. They follow. They follow our lead. So, for the most part, we get the government we deserve.

Many people probably were bothered by the idea that New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg wanted to dictate how much sugary soda a person legally could purchase from restaurants, push-cart vendors and fast-food joints.

How dare Big Brother impose some bureaucrat's myopic vision of the dividing line between healthy and unhealthy!

It's a valid complaint, as far as it goes. It should be none of the government's business how much my belly hangs over my belt, or how far your derriere extends over the edges of the swivel chair at McDonald's.

Our obesity, should we choose to be obese, is our business. Where do they get off telling us to drink healthier or to eat more reasonably? After all, it's our money. Our choice. Our consequences.

Well, not exactly.

Government, whose legitimate authority is supposed to be to protect peoples' rights, instead is becoming the fulfiller of wants and desires and provider of comfort and care. Health care, in particular.

The Sacramento Bee reported recently that government spending on health care in California now exceeds what is spent on the entire state general-fund budget. We've come a long way. Many people can remember a time when government spent next to nothing to provide such stuff.

In California, in 2011 the federal and state governments spent $46 billion on Medicaid (called Medi-Cal), a health care program for the poor, and the federal government spent another $59 billion on Medicare, a health care program for Americans at least age 65, according to recent estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. That's roughly $2,800 per California resident. And Obamacare spending hasn't even kicked in, yet.

Medicare and Medicaid spending in California doubled over the past 15 years, even after adjusting for inflation. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates spending on those programs will rise from 5 percent of the nation's gross domestic product today to 10 percent by 2037. That's one of every 10 dollars produced by the U.S. economy to pay for government-financed health care.

In 2011 the government spent six times as much on Medicare and Medicaid as on unemployment benefits. If food stamp spending has become a problem – and it has – the government spent 16 times as much on Medicare and Medicaid. If Social Security's finances are in trouble – and they are – government spent about 65 percent more on Medicare and Medicaid, says the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Even irresponsible spendthrifts, such as those at the controls of all these federal entitlements, know enough about balance sheets to recognize the government has to stop the fiscal bleeding. Consequently, we who cherish our personal freedoms increasingly are dictated to on matters as mundane as portion sizes for sugary drinks.

Couple this fiscal responsibility with the seemingly irrepressible urge to force people to do what the government deems worth doing, and we get laws like Obamacare, which tells you what health care services you may have, and like Bloomberg's drink limitations.

We, the public, who are so willing to hand over responsibility for our consequences to faceless bureaucracies, don't seem to connect the dots when the same bureaucracies insist that we quit running up the health care tab by consuming super-sized burgers, fries and 32-ounce Cokes.

The old adage applies: He who pays the piper calls the tune. After telling the government to pay the bills, why are we surprised the government imposes conditions on what it will pay for?

Consequently, the government increasingly calls the tune: Eat this, don't eat that. Drink only this much, not more.

Ironically, this Nanny State effort to corral our appetites is in a sense a more fiscally responsible act than we committed when we turned over to Big Brother the responsibility to pay for our health care. At least the government recognizes the money pit isn't bottomless. There must be limits. And some bureaucrat, or politician, will be happy to set those limits.

This is the inevitable upshot when government plays nanny. Don't blame the bureaucrats and politicians. They simply are following our lead. We said, “Take care of us.” They took our taxes and found that even those huge amounts of cash don't cover our even larger appetites for everything we insist the government provide.

To spend more responsibly, they will tell us what is acceptable behavior and what is not. If you were paying someone else's bills, wouldn't you insist on responsible behavior before cutting the check?

Unfortunately, we the public want our cheeseburgers and 32-ounce sugary drinks but don't want to pay for the consequences like cardiac care, diabetes treatment and joint replacements. Who is the irresponsible party here? The government? Not exactly.

© Copyright 2010 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Site Map