October 4, 2011

Ari Armstrong, Lizzie Warren, and the ‘Social Contract’

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 10:56 am

Longtime BizzyBlog readers might remember Ari Armstrong as the guy who, along with his wife, proved the truly bogus nature of the “Food Stamp Challenge” back in 2007.

Last week, Armstrong had a brilliant Pajamas Media column: “Elizabeth Warren’s ‘Social Contract’ an Ideological Fantasy.” One key point (among so many): “the wealthy (already) pay for most of the governmental services that others use.”

I want to extend Ari’s point about Lizzie Warren’s stretched-beyond-reason definition of “social contract.”

There is some validity to the argument that parents without children have an obligation to continue to support public schools at reasonable levels even after their kids are grown — but there is a strong case against public schools as currently organized, most notably the past 50 years of substandard performance and costs rising at twice the rate of inflation during almost the entire time.

But when salaries and benefits get out of control and are miles above what the average person in the private sector receives, you’re past the realm of “reasonable.” Pushback is not only understandable but necessary — especially when the beneficiaries won’t budge an inch. Hence Issue 2 in Ohio, for which the only fully informed vote can be “Yes.”

Extending a basic concept beyond the family, society also needs to take care of the elderly who can’t fend for themselves. But somehow, that “social contract” has been rewritten to guarantee middle-class lifestyles to almost any and every retiree, regardless of their means and ability to work, even if they stop working at 62 and live on average to be 90. That’s out of whack.

But it’s far, far worse than even that. Lizzie Warren knows it, but won’t admit the inconvenient truth in front of her ignorant liberal fan base. The truth is this: While at some level, you can semi-excuse the bleating about the “social contract” when one set of living humans agrees to do something for another set of living humans, today’s “social contract” is obligating generations not yet born to the tune of trillions of dollars (tens and even hundreds of trillions if you count “unfunded obligations”) to finance Lizzie Warren’s and the left’s bottomless pit of income- and wealth-transfer schemes — and they have absolutely no intention of letting up.

Obviously, nobody has asked generations yet unborn if any of this is okay, and no one currently alive can properly claim authorization to speak for them. Given the amounts involved (and potentially involved if Lizzie and her leftists get everything they want), no amount of brainwashing will get future generations to agree that taking on these burdens is okey-dokey once they arrive into this world and reach adulthood. Even if the brainwashing were somehow to work, they simply won’t have the means to keep the “contract” going. Lizzie Warren is smart enough to understand this (unlike Sherrod Brown, who I believe really doesn’t), but she doesn’t care.

Share

2 Comments

  1. I suggest it’s unconstitutional to defer financial obligations on unborn generations.

    Comment by Mike Pechar — October 4, 2011 @ 3:44 pm

  2. In light of this “Social Contract” isn’t it the responsibility of those who took charge of Society to allocate it’s resources efficaciously? If so then how is it that Public Universities give very low return to net loss on those “investments” where tax payer dollars subsidize higher education?

    Cheap for Whom?
    How Much Higher Education Costs Taxpayers
    http://www.aei.org/outlook/101081
    pdf version – http://www.aei.org/docLib/08-EduO-Schneider-Oct-2011-g.pdf

    Table 2 is a damning indictment of Liberal stewardship. Once again, the term investment used by liberals is a sham. When we “invest” in something we expect a return of prinicipal plus a profit otherwise there is no point in “consuming” taxpayer dollars. It’s time for reform.

    BTW – It would be interesting to know if Texas public universities fall into the “Non-/Less Competitive” and “Most Competitive” categories.

    Comment by dscott — October 5, 2011 @ 2:18 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.