This post from a CNN correspondent nicely summarizes the debate over the role of government and what the budget needs to cover:
To take just one example, as recently as 1962 the federal government spent only $29 billion on programs for poor and low-income Americans; in 2010 the federal government spent $789 billion on these and similar programs, a 27-fold increase. This example could be multiplied, especially with reference to retirement programs, health programs, education programs and federal regulations.
Liberals regard this outpouring of spending and expansion of government authority as a triumph; conservatives and libertarians regard both as excessive. Worse, they think the programs give too many people what they should work for themselves, thereby reducing individual initiative and down-sizing the American vision.
Like so many half-full, half empty issues in life what is the example you use to understand this issue – an individual who lives in poverty and does not have reasonable opportunities to escape or the individual who has learned to play the system. While I understand the cost, I don’t see how cutting the budget provides solutions to poverty, health care, or education. I guess I must be a liberal, but I don’t see the value in describing spending money to meet genuine needs as a triumph. I would describe it as a responsibility. How are the important equity needs of the country going to be met? The deficit is a problem because of the refusal to generate a reasonable tax structure. It is not a problem without a solution.
Maybe some folks just don’t care – I have mine and that is all that matters. Is that really all there is to the explanation?