There are many issues on which a sizeable number of U.S. citizens, sometimes majorities, claim that the federal government does not reflect their views: education, foreign policy, the Terri Schiavo case and now the war in Iraq.
But there is at least one place where our governed and our governors' beliefs seem to match up just right: we like buying stuff.
Individual bankruptcy claims are up 185 percent since the late 1980s. Part of this can be blamed on our economic system that provides little safety net for citizens in terms of health care and unemployment benefits. Half of these claims are the result of job loss, medical crisis or divorce. Yet some of the blame lies in our glitzy consumer culture and on those individuals who buy into it.
Unfortunately, that seems to be most everyone. The national savings rate, or the amount of one's income left over after expenditures as a percentage of disposable income, recently hit zero. It hasn't been this low since the Great Depression. There are reasons to consider this rate both under- and overestimated, but the point remains that U.S. citizens are saving less. Around 15 years ago, double-digit savings rates were the norm.
What are we spending our money on? A better question might be: What are we not spending it on? You can't turn your head without seeing a newer, bigger SUV rumbling down the street. Sales of designer clothing for infants and children have skyrocketed. Why?
Well, when was the last time you saw an ad saying, "Don't buy our product. Save your money for a rainy day," or a celebrity on "Cribs" saying, "I just have one car because, after all, I can only drive one at a time"? Our culture is focusing ever more intently on urging us to spend on the latest and greatest.
I feel like an old-timer, harkening back to the day when the "M" in MTV stood for Music, not Materialism. Now, "Cribs" and "Pimp My Ride" have replaced music videos. Countdowns of the most expensive pieces of jewelry owned by musicians are replacing video countdowns. MTV (and VH-1 as well) no longer promote musicians' music, but rather, their material possessions. Perhaps they are simply following society's move toward ever-faster instant gratification; after all, no demographic is cutting consumerism, but not every demographic watches MTV.
Our elected officials don't, for one. Politicians talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, but recently they can't seem to resist keeping their hands out of the cookie jar. They match our spending habits item for item. The $286 billion transportation bill that recently passed was $30 billion over Bush's stated limit, but he declined to veto it.
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, the bill included over 6,000 pork projects totaling $24 billion. My favorite examples: $5.9 million for a snowmobile trail in Vermont and $223 million for a bridge that leads from Ketchikan, Alaska, population 8,000, to an Alaskan island, population 50.
Let's consider the energy bill as well. Total cost estimates range from $20 to $60 billion, but all agree that it included subsidies for everything possible. The best thing about the bill is that it gave Democratic Congressman Ed Markey the opportunity to tell this knee-slapper to the Weekly Standard: "Right now, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast that he would qualify for a subsidy in this bill as an energy source. That is how bad this bill is."
Where does this lead our government? To the same place it has led us: debt. In 1999, our budget looked to have a $5 trillion surplus over the next 10 years; now we look to be $5 trillion in the hole. The budget for fiscal year 2005 has a record deficit of $427 billion. According to the Cato Institute, even excluding increases in defense and homeland security spending, the Bush administration has presided over the largest government spending increase in the last 30 years. The Heritage Foundation reports that per-household government spending is at a 60-year high.
There doesn't seem to be an end in sight: no-bid contracts for New Orleans cleanup were given to Halliburton just a week after Katrina. Have we, as parents, citizens and officials, let our lust for spending and instant gratification drown our duty to provide a brighter future than what we inherited? I hope not. We must limit our extraneous spending, both as individuals and as a nation, so that future generations might be better able to meet unexpected challenges.
