The American Freedom Network

The New Normal – Living With Less Under More Pressure

     America’s entry into what forecaster Gerald Celente calls “The Greatest Depression” was preceded by Michigan’s falling into a one-state Slough of Despond in 2001 from which the Big Mitten has yet to recover.  As Americans come to grips with the reality of national bankruptcy and what a friend of mine calls, “The Era of Broken Promises,” we will have to adjust to living with less until the wreckage of a generation’s profligacy is dealt with.
     What does that mean for the average American?  Local governments will seek more tax revenue, either through tax increases or by nuisance taxes disguised as traffic tickets, aggressive use of civil infraction ordinances, civil forfeiture abuse, which we’ve already seen in Michigan, and stealth moves to act without public oversight.
     Both families and governments will have to live with less.  Both will seek to avoid facing this reality, because that is human nature.  Luxury item spending will hold up long after the average Joe cuts back on the basics.  Governments will remain in denial for the same reasons.  Public Choice economics, pioneered by Nobel laureate James Buchanan, explains that there is no difference between human action inside or outside of government; that is, government workers and the organizations they staff will seek to expand their reach, increase their budgets and raise their earnings, just as do private sector individuals and businesses.  Thus, the public will have to counteract the natural human tendency to delay the unpleasant by ignoring the inevitable in the arena of public spending.  (This applies to all those who depend on government for a living, not just public-sector employees; contractors will be just as resistant to having ‘their’ programs cut.)
     Citizens interested in avoiding higher taxes should consider lobbying their governments, especially at the local level, so that their representatives understand that the times require preserving only essential services, and that they are willing to do without things that previously were taken for granted.  (Which local programs that you use are you willing to give up?  Adult enrichment classes at the local high school, dial-a-ride service, street sweeping, et cetera?)  They might also push for a more radical reform of government, for example, by having county sheriffs perform all local law enforcement (which would entail consolidation of local police departments and significant cuts in staffing), enrolling all public employees in a statewide health care plan to save money, elimination of intermediate school districts and other layers of administration normally hidden from public view. 
    Each battle will be fierce, however, as those with a vested interest and who stand to lose much will fight hard to retain the status quo, while their opponents will have only a general interest in containing spending and stand to lose relatively little if they fail to achieve their sought-after reform.  (A tax increase enacted may cost a local property owner a few hundred dollars annually; a failed tax proposal may cost some people their livelihoods; thus their greater interest in achieving their goals.)
      More pernicious than a slew of millage proposals are hidden, de facto nuisance taxes, such as more-agressive ordinance enforcement, emphasis on ticketing speeders as a revenue tool, or seizing the cars of people who are never convicted, and often never even charged with a crime.  “Civil Forfeiture” is de-facto theft, but with a twist:  The carjacking is done by law enforcement, and it is often on the flimsiest of excuses – making eye contact with a vice squad decoy may be called soliciting a prostitute, and although such a case would never stand up in court, it is excuse enough to take the motorist’s car, impound it, and either charge as much as $900.00 to return it (in Michigan), or to auction it, all without charges ever being filed.  Some police departments are quite frank about this being all about the money, and not about justice.
     The great danger lies in letting apathy overtake urgency in addressing the need for action now; otherwise, incremental actions that negatively affect only a few – property owners, those losing cars to civil forfeiture, smokers, beer drinkers, and so on – will eventually affect all, either through imposition of one or more taxes or indirectly as the economy continues to suffer from excessive public sector spending.
     Action now, even if no more than writing a polite, informed letter to a legislator, can have consequences.  The alternative is to pay more while living on less, both financially and in terms of personal liberty.