First, the Democrats that controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate in 2010 failed to vote on the FY 2011 budget last fall.  The Democrats could have easily passed the budget.  Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, abdicated her responsibility and did not bring the budget to a vote.  It appears that Pelosi and other Democratic leaders including President Obama didn't want to pass a budget with about $1.5 Trillion deficit right before the election, because of the potential negative impact it would have on the Democrats during the election.  Political strategy was more important to the Democrats than the nation's business.  During the post election lame duck session, Pelosi again did not bring the budget to a vote.

Second, the new Republican led House of Representatives passed a government spending bill a few weeks after taking office in January 2011.  The spending bill contains a modest of amount of spending cuts in discretionary portions of the federal budget.  The Senate, led by Democrat Harry Reid, refused to vote on the House passed bill.  After several weeks of continuing resolutions and failed negotiations on a compromise bill we are now about three hours away from a government shutdown.  The House Republicans are trying hard to make meaningful spending cuts while the Democrats are fighting the cuts in every way possible.  (Guess what? A deal was cut tonight and the government will not shut down, at least not tonight.)

In recent days neither side has truly addressed the fundamental underlying reason for the debate that has split the nation and made the USA appear irresponsible before the world.  Earlier this week House Republican leadership released its proposed 2012 budget which attempts to partially address the deficit and debt problem of the US government.  It is apparent that the liberal progressives in Congress and the President will never agree to the Republican proposal.  If one reads, listens and observes what is actually happening it all comes down to a fundamental difference in philosophy over the issue of "wealth redistribution".

Beginning with the Great Society government programs of the 1960s our nation has dramatically increased its commitment to a wide range of social welfare programs.  While Social Security began in the 1930s the cost and coverage of the program has been dramatically increased in recent decades.  Most people receive far more in benefits than they contributed in taxes while they are working.  Our nation's commitments to Medicare, Medicaid, housing programs, education and grants to social welfare oriented organizations have accelerated dramatically over the decades.  Liberal progressives have pushed for the USA to become a nanny state by adding program after program to the government's obligations.  President Obama's medical reform bill that was signed into law in 2010 was the most recent major addition to the list of government social welfare programs.  The US has in many respects become a democratic socialist nation.

Our government is taking a portion of the wealth from the most productive people in our country and transferring it to the least productive people in our society to support all of its social welfare programs.  Unfortunately, the citizens of the USA, through their elected representatives, don't agree on how much wealth is a reasonable amount to be transferred to support the social welfare programs and other government expenditures such as the Department of Defense.  With no agreement in place our government has spent trillions of dollars more than it has collected over the years and accumulated a massive federal debt.  The government has also amassed tens of trillions of dollars of future obligations for which there is no funding source.  The wealth redistribution process has far exceeded our nations collectively ability to pay for the obligations that have been created.

The debate that has been going over the past few weeks in the US Congress is the very beginning of a legislative process that will hopefully turn the redistribution of wealth in a direction that the nation can agree is rational and affordable.  Unfortunately, we don't have a President that is willing to lead the effort to fundamentally address the issues.  It is quite possible our government will ultimately fail to rationally address the issues and effectively bankrupt our nation.  If this occurs it will be a tragedy.  A series of Presidents, a series of Congresses and all of those citizens that supported the financial negligence that was been part of our political process in Washington for decades can take credit for destroying the United States of America from a financial perspective.  They will have accomplished what enemy nations and terrorists failed to do.  In the end there won't be much wealth remaining to redistribute. 

The liberal progressives are in the process of destroying the USA goose that laid the golden egg.

Copyright 2011 by TPM