Noam Chomsky’s correct that Republicans want to increase defense spending,
which it’s interesting he didn’t argue against it as many leftists typically
do because he credits the Pentagon for much of our modern innovation.
Swish! Republicans?
With that said, his evidence is EXTREMELY weak for such a bold endorsement of military-driven
innovation because otherwise North Korea and the Soviet Union would be one of the
most innovative countries on Earth. Defense spending can incentivize private investment
to help achieve certain national goals (to the Mooooooon!), but overall there’s a lot
of evidence that the military-industrial complex crowds out privately financed R&D
and drains the private sector of much of its top researchers.
Chomsky’s main complaint, therefore, is that
Republicans only care about balancing the budget when it pertains to welfare spending on the poor.
He’s factually wrong though.
Republicans have continuously supported welfare spending on the poor. In the last 40 years,
Republican politicians have consistently voted for federal budgets that increase welfare spending.
In addition, Republican presidents have signed into law such anti-poverty legislation as: XYZ
On the state level, Republican politicians have also supported welfare spending on the poor.
And on an individual level, many Republican voters are on food stamps,
Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.
If Chomsky’s claim was accurate then in 2016 when Republicans had control of the House, Senate,
and Presidency they would’ve cut welfare spending on the poor, but in fact, they increased it.
Overall, the U.S. spends about 20% of its GDP on social welfare spending,
which is more than Australia, Canada, and Switzerland.
This is a MASSIVE amount too when you consider the U.S. has the largest GDP in human history.
Generally, Republicans support less welfare spending than Democrats, but it’s dishonest
populist pandering leftist straw-manning to suggest they don’t support it at all.
Both parties support welfare spending on the rich.
Unfortunately, Chomsky’s correct here that both parties support corporate welfare.
As Noam Chomsky points out,
“The extent to which corporations rely on the nanny state is often not realized.”
Since the 1980s, Big Business started lobbying for more regulations and government spending.
Famous recent examples are the 2008 bailouts, Obamacare, Walmart/Amazon
lobbying for a higher minimum wage, and Big Tech endorsing a Global Minimum Corporate Tax.
This isn’t a bug in the system, but an INEVITABLE consequence of any big centralized government
hence why any socialist vision that doesn’t acknowledge this reality is fundamentally utopian.
The only way to reduce cronyism & corruption
in D.C. is to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Chomsky proposes: we need to downsize D.C!
Socialism for All (vs.) Free Market for All.
Chomsky wants to give the ruling 1% even more power/control over your life.
Want to choose your own doctor?
Nope. Want to choose your own teacher? Nope. Want to start your own business?
Nope.
Chomsky wants politicians/bureaucrats/academics to dictate virtually everything about your life, “for
your own good,” of course. And although there are many socialists who come to power with good
intentions, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the ruling elite inevitably put their own
self-interest over the collective interest because humans are naturally self-interested.
Anyone who promises you something for nothing should be treated as a scammer no matter if
they’re speaking from an Ivory Tower, the halls of Congress, or a Nigerian “palace.”
Like a scammer, Democratic Socialists will demand more and more of your income
and then they’ll finally be able to deliver you whatever they promised!
The pot of gold is just a little bit further! They just need 10% or 30% or 50% more of your income.
There’s a reason why as people get older they stop believing in Santa Claus and Democratic Socialism.
These fairytales are meant to make us feel good and make a handsome profit
for those trafficking in their lies, but to grown adults capable of critical thinking
we know breaking into someone’s home won’t end with free milk & cookies.
If such Democratic Socialist policies as Medicare-for-All, College-for-All,
Jobs-for-All were ever passed then not only would they destroy the U.S. job market,
therefore massively increasing consumer prices, but unlike “socialism for the
rich” these policies remove choice for Americans. D.C. works for big businesses by giving them money
and tax loopholes while saddling their small business competitors with taxes and regulation.
When D.C. “works” for the poor we can call it, “trickle-down economics,” i.e. give to top-level
bureaucrats who will then try to spend the money on the poor’s behalf. Ummm, definitely not on
behalf of their favorite political donors and groups. No, no, no. D.C. is obviously
above such political calculations (cough, cough Biden’s “human” infrastructure bill).
One of the areas where the United States has really embraced socialism is in education.
How’s it going? Terrible. We spend more on education per pupil than virtually every country
on Earth and yet we have decreasing educational standards! We’d be better off giving a $10K check
to each high school student and telling them that if they want another $10K next
year then at the end of the year they need to pass XYZ tests, which could be administered
either online or at a local facility. This would encourage students to have stronger study and
critical thinking habits as they’d have to take greater responsibility for their own learning.
Ultimately, Chomsky believes we should have more socialism for everyone whereas conservatives
believe we should have more capitalism for everyone, in part, because the most
innovative and affordable parts of our economy are the least regulated and for the parts of
the economy that are highly regulated the least regulated parts of it are the most innovative.
Balance Budget Amendment Is Sensible Chomsky argued, “As a program balancing the budget
makes no sense at all. No enterprise lives on a balanced budget. A household or a business they
all live on debt unless you’re a hermit living in the woods. That’s not how any live system works.”
Pure nonsense.
There’s a lot of evidence that nations that exceed 90% debt-to-GDP ratio experience a
slower rate of economic growth. In addition, every year 15% of the U.S. federal budget
goes toward interest payments on our national debt, which is hundreds of billions of dollars
that could have otherwise been going toward education, defense, or left in Americans pockets.
If you want to make sense then you need to think in terms of cents.
And then finally, a high national debt leads to inflation, which ends up hurting
fixed-income Americans the most as they have to spend more dollars to buy the same goods.
Chomsky doesn’t seem to understand that the rich will not just sit
by and let the federal government eviscerate the value of their wealth
without trying to move it overseas and into new commodities & denominations.
The federal government could try and prevent the rich from moving their money, but that’s
virtually impossible in a globalized economy with a relatively free exchange of goods and services.
We can’t even keep out hundreds of thousands of people from illegally entering the country
so it’s a pipedream to suggest the federal government has the competence and/or
politicians have the political will to stop the movement of their rich political donors’ money.
Our best course, therefore, isn’t so much to use government force to keep people,
money, and businesses from leaving, but instead to have sound money,
which a balanced budget amendment would help create.
Only someone interested in pandering to the lowest
common denominator would say a balanced budget makes no sense.
Chomsky claims, “No enterprise lives on a balanced budget.”
Wrong again.
Virtually every household or business makes more money than they spend each year otherwise
they wouldn’t have a home or stay in business very long. This is what a BBA would require.
Of course, certain investments & emergencies require enterprises to go into debt. For example,
many people go into debt for college or to buy a home and similarily
a BBA would permit the government to deficit-spend too for special circumstances such as recession,
war, or a national emergency whereby the Congress could overrule the BBA with a 60%
vote. Chomsky needs to learn that a national deficit is not the same as the national debt
and so even if the federal government started balancing its books every year the United
States would still have a national debt for decades to come just as many enterprises do.
In the end, a Balanced Budget Requirement is just plain ol’ economic sense,
but dishonest academics and politicians will try to sell us on the idea that we can just spend,
spend, spend, print, print, print and there’ll be nothing but economic growth and rainbows ahead.
To those of us who exist in the real world though,
we know unfortunately there won’t be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.