Ten Most Harmful Government Programs

Adam's Apple

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2004
4,092
452
48
The 10 Most Harmful Government Programs
Compiled by Human Events Editorial Board
April 10, 2006

Each judge was asked to nominate a few programs for the 2006 list of the "10 Most Harmful Government Programs". We then sent them ballots listing the nominated programs. They ranked their choices 1 through 10, with No. 1 being the program they believed to be "most harmful." A program earned 10 points for each No. 1 vote it received, 9 points for each No. 2 vote, and so on.

The program with the highest aggregate score -- Social Security -- was given the No. 1 position on this year's list, and next year will be retired into the Government Program Hall of Shame. When the ballots were tallied, we phoned spokesmen for the federal agencies responsible for each program that made the list to see if they could point to the constitutional language, if any, that authorized the program.

1. Social Security

Score:155
Started when:1935
By whom: President Franklin Roosevelt and a Democratic Congress.

Why: To replace the family with the federal government as the principal means of providing financially for seniors who lack the savings to sustain themselves.

What it does: The government imposes a 12.4% tax on the first $94,200 in income earned by every worker. Half of this tax, 6.2%, is paid by the employee and is shown on his paycheck as a deduction. The other 6.2% is paid by the employer and is not shown on a worker’s paycheck. However, as conservative economists point out, it also effectively comes from the worker as it is part of the cost the employer incurs on his behalf. The program has socialized the retirement of Americans, making most seniors financially dependent on payments that the federal government may alter, decrease or even cancel. Democrats routinely and demagogically use this fact to their political advantage. Benefits for current retirees are paid by those still working. When the system was founded, there were 42 working taxpayers per beneficiary. Today, there are about three. In 25 years, there will be about two. President Bush made a valiant effort last year to begin reforming the system with a proposal that included allowing workers to create small personal retirement accounts with a minimal segment of their Social Security tax. Democrats uniformly opposed the idea.

Cost: Social Security collected $657.7 billion in taxes in 2004 and paid out $501.6 billion in benefits. Congress spent every penny of the $156.1-billion Social Security surplus on non-Social Security items. The Social Security Administration says the program faces $4 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years.

2. Medicare

Score: 103 points
Started when: 1965
By whom: President Lyndon B. Johnson and a Democratic Congress

Why: To provide federally funded health insurance to seniors.

What it does: The government imposes a 2.9% Medicare tax on all income earned by workers. Half is paid directly by the worker, the other half is paid by employers. In return, the government provides seniors with hospital insurance, or Medicare Part A, which pays for hospital and hospice care. Also, for a modest premium, seniors receive supplementary medical insurance, or Medicare Part B, which pays physicians' fees and outpatient care. Part D, President Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan, became effective this year (and last year was enrolled in the HUMAN EVENTS Government Program Hall of Shame). It covers much of the cost of drugs for seniors on Medicare. These programs have socialized health care for seniors, making them dependent on the government not only for their income, but also for their medical coverage. Medicare covered 41.7 million people in 2004.

Cost: In 1966, according to the Office of Management and Budget, Medicare cost $64 million.

Republicans predicted its costs would increase enormously. In 2007, it is estimated it will to cost $392 billion. By 2011, its projected cost is $494 billion. The Government Accountability Office estimates Medicare faces $28 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years.

3. Income Tax Withholding

Score: 102 points
Started when: 1935 and 1943
By whom: President Franklin Roosevelt and a Democratic Congress.

Why: Roosevelt and his Democrat Congress vastly expanded the number of Americans who owed income taxes when they imposed a "Victory Tax" of 5% on all incomes over $624 in 1942. Because they feared that low- and middle-income workers might not pay the new tax unless it was withheld from their wages, Congress enacted the Current Tax Payment Act in 1943. This program is linked to this year's No. 1 Most Harmful Program, Social Security, because the Social Security Act of 1935 paved the way for the withholding of income taxes by mandating the withholding of Social Security taxes.

What it does: Compels employers to withhold income and payroll taxes from workers' paychecks and pay the money directly to the federal government each quarter before tax returns are actually filed. It allows the government to extract far more revenue from workers than would be politically feasible if workers paid the tax directly. In a study for the Cato Institute, Charlotte Twight noted: "[W]ithholding is the paramount administrative mechanism enabling the federal government to collect, without significant protest, sufficient private resources to fund a vastly expanded welfare state."

Cost: According to the OMB, Americans will pay $1.76 trillion in individual income and payroll taxes in 2006.

4. McCain-Feingold

Score: 101
Started when: 2002
By whom: President George W. Bush, even while doubting its constitutionality, signed a law sponsored by Senators John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.) and Representatives Chris Shays (R.-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D.-Mass.).

Why: Purportedly to "clean up" financing of federal election campaigns, following various investigations of the financing of the 1996 Clinton-Gore reelection campaign.

What it does: It prevents political parties from raising funds that are not allocated to specific candidates -- so-called "soft" money -- and bars citizens groups from using candidates' names or photographs in broadcast advertising for 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. It violates the 1st Amendment by restricting political speech. It also protects incumbents from challengers and from issue-oriented groups that oppose the way they vote in Congress. Only candidates and news organizations, as opposed to regular citizens, are permitted to publicize a politician's voting record at election time.

Cost: Lost freedom.

Constitutional provision: The Supreme Court, although unable to explain convincingly why the law didn't violate the 1st Amendment, upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold in the 2003 case of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. When asked where the Constitution authorized the federal government to assume powers granted by McCain-Feingold, a spokesman for the FEC told HUMAN EVENTS: "Well Congress passed this in 2002 … You would have to speak to a congressional lawyer for this, which I am not."

for entire list: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13885
 
Robert B. Bluey
Editor, Human Events Online
Mr. Bluey oversees the daily online edition of Human Events, which offers readers all the great content of the weekly print edition, plus additional reporting, opinon and blogs exclusive to the website. He was named editor of Human Events Online in November 2005 after spending a year as assistant editor and later managing editor of the print edition. He frequently writes about breaking news in the nation's capital and across the globe. Mr. Bluey previously worked at Cybercast News Service, where he was the first journalist to report on the forged CBS documents on President Bush's National Guard service. He covered the Republican and Democrat conventions in 2004. Mr. Bluey grew up in upstate New York and graduated from Ithaca College.

Ivy J. Sellers
News Producer, Human Events Online
Before becoming the news producer for Human Events Online, Ms. Sellers studied communications and print journalism at Brigham Young University. During her years as an undergrad, Ms. Sellers worked as a reporter and editor for the Daily Universe, BYU’s award-winning student newspaper. Previous to her current employment, she contributed to Human Events as an intern through the National Journalism Center, covering political events and press conferences taking place in Washington.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas S. Winter
Editor in Chief, Human Events
For more than four decades, Mr. Winter has been the guiding force behind Human Events. He joined the conservative weekly in 1961 at the age of 24 as an assistant editor after earning a bachelor's degree (1959) and MBA (1961) from Harvard University. In 1964, he took over the paper as its editor, and in 1966 he became co-owner and president. He also serves as vice chairman of the American Conservative Union and treasurer of the Conservative Victory Fund. He assumed the title editor in chief in 1996.

Terence P. Jeffrey
Editor, Human Events
Mr. Jeffrey began working at Human Events in 1996 after serving as campaign manager to Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. He was Buchanan's research director in his 1992 campaign. In between the two campaigns, Mr. Jeffrey served as executive director of the American Cause. He was born in San Francisco and graduated from Princeton University in 1981. He worked from 1987-91 as an editorial writer at the Washington Times, where he was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. He is a frequent guest on MSNBC and CNN.

Christopher M. Field
Managing Editor, Human Events
Mr. Field was named editor of Human Events Online in 2003 and became managing editor of the print edition in November 2005. He previously worked at the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee as an associate policy analyst. He began his three-and-a-half year stint at the Republican Policy Committee in 1999 following his graduation from Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, Idaho, where he received bachelor's degrees in English, secondary education and history.

John Gizzi
Political Editor, Human Events
With his daily access to the White House, Mr. Gizzi offers readers the inside scoop in his weekly politics column and Gizz-ette blog. The man who knows everyone in Washington got his start at Human Events in 1979 after graduating from Fairfield University in Connecticut, and then working for the Travis County (Tex.) Tax Assessor. He has appeared on hundreds of radio and TV programs, including those on C-SPAN, America's Voice and Talk America. He is a past president of the Georgetown Kiwanis Club and former treasurer of St. Matthew's Cathedral. He is a recipient of the William A. Rusher Award for Journalistic Excellence.

Amanda B. Carpenter
Assistant Editor, Human Events
When Congress is in session, Ms. Carpenter roams Capitol Hill to report breaking news for Human Events Online and questions members about pressing issues for Human Events' weekly Page 3 feature. She is a 2005 graduate of Ball State University, where she founded a hard-hitting conservative news website, bsyou.net, and was a national debate champion. Before coming aboard at Human Events, Ms. Carpenter came to Washington to intern at the Leadership Institute, teaching college students how to start their own conservative publications. Carpenter was honored with the Campus Leadership Program's Investigative Journalism Award in 2005.

Ann Coulter
Legal Affairs Correspondent, Human Events
Ms. Coulter has considered Human Events her editorial home since 1996, when she began writing a column rich in legal expertise and irreverent attitude. You can read her column each week first on Human Events Online, which carries extra commentary not found anywhere else. Ms. Coulter is the author of How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2004, Crown Forum), Treason (2003, Crown Forum), Slander (2002, Crown), and High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (1998, Regnery). She is a graduate of Cornell University and the University of Michigan Law School.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/about-editors.php
 
What the hell, Jillian? Tell us something else that we don't already know. There is no unbiased opinion regarding government programs. The source - Human Events Online - should have told you this was a conservative piece. And, yes, it's no great surprise that their editorial board is made up of conservatives. As far as I know, USMB is a conservative chat board, so what do you expect? You chose to participate, so don't start the liberal chant --biased, unfair, unfounded, and whatever else happens to come to mind-- P L E A S E!!!!
 
Adam's Apple said:
What the hell, Jillian? Tell us something else that we don't already know. There is no unbiased opinion regarding government programs. The source - Human Events Online - should have told you this was a conservative piece. And, yes, it's no great surprise that their editorial board is made up of conservatives. As far as I know, USMB is a conservative chat board, so what do you expect? You chose to participate, so don't start the liberal chant --biased, unfair, unfounded, and whatever else happens to come to mind-- P L E A S E!!!!

There's certainly bias on both sides. So I'm not supposed to point out that a source is distorted and isn't an accurate reflection of anything except a particular viewpoint?

Okie dokie.... :scratch:
 
Too lazy to read the link, but I think property tax sucks big time. My FIL said this at his retirement. "I worked my whole adult life, paid off my mortgage, but we're still not secure. If I can't pay taxes, I can still lose my home."

I'd rather see income taxed than property. If you make no income, you owe nothing. But, with property taxes, you make nothing, and you still owe. How you gonna pay?
 
jillian said:
There's certainly bias on both sides.

At least we agree that there are no unbiased sources or opinions when it comes to government programs.

So I'm not supposed to point out that a source is distorted and isn't an accurate reflection of anything except a particular viewpoint?

How do you know the source is distorted and inaccurate? Isn’t that, in fact, just your own liberal “particular viewpoint”?
 
mom4 said:
Too lazy to read the link, but I think property tax sucks big time. My FIL said this at his retirement. "I worked my whole adult life, paid off my mortgage, but we're still not secure. If I can't pay taxes, I can still lose my home."

I'd rather see income taxed than property. If you make no income, you owe nothing. But, with property taxes, you make nothing, and you still owe. How you gonna pay?

It ought to be illegal for the government to burden seniors like this. There needs to be a waiver of property tax for folks on Social Security. The real kicker is that the town appraises the value of the house and then taxes based on that value. If the town needs more money, just appraise everyone's house at a higher value.
 
MissileMan said:
It ought to be illegal for the government to burden seniors like this. There needs to be a waiver of property tax for folks on Social Security. The real kicker is that the town appraises the value of the house and then taxes based on that value. If the town needs more money, just appraise everyone's house at a higher value.

I hear ya! :beer:
 
Adam's Apple said:
At least we agree that there are no unbiased sources or opinions when it comes to government programs.



How do you know the source is distorted and inaccurate? Isn’t that, in fact, just your own liberal “particular viewpoint”?

Everyone has a "point of view", hence a leaning. Doesn't mean the facts aren't reported accurately, necessarily, but it does mean it's being written from a particular perspective.

See...when I saw your thread title, I assumed there was going to be some assessment made by a poll done by random sampling or the like, which really set forth how people think their government is operating. I thought i'd learn from something like that and it would be interesting. Instead, I got the entire extreme right agenda that's probably gone back as far as Roosevelt.

Thus my comments. ;)
 
mom4 said:
Too lazy to read the link, but I think property tax sucks big time. My FIL said this at his retirement. "I worked my whole adult life, paid off my mortgage, but we're still not secure. If I can't pay taxes, I can still lose my home."

I'd rather see income taxed than property. If you make no income, you owe nothing. But, with property taxes, you make nothing, and you still owe. How you gonna pay?

Income tax is socialism's red-headed stepchild. Tax consumption. You pay no tax until you SPEND the money.

As for the government programs, they left out a big one, government schools. They don't have to compete with anyone and so they suck.
 
Hobbit said:
Income tax is socialism's red-headed stepchild. Tax consumption. You pay no tax until you SPEND the money.

As for the government programs, they left out a big one, government schools. They don't have to compete with anyone and so they suck.

Do you have kids?
 
jillian said:
Do you have kids?

Why should it matter? He pays for the schools, whether he uses them or not. As long as he pays his taxes, he can bitch about them all he wants to. ;)
 
Dr Grump said:
There are no private schools in the USA? :fifty:

Oh, don't get smart with me. Whether or not my kids one day go to private school, it still won't affect the public school system, as it will still recieve a huge sum of money from my property tax. I shouldn't have to pay for school twice. Although it's a far cry from privatization and subsidation, just allowing parents a voucher worth, say, 90% of what the district would spent on their kids' education that can be used to either put them in private school or move them to a better public school would cause a drastic change overnight.

The fact is that as much as the Democrats defend the current public school system using the poor as a pawn, voucher systems or privatization and subsidation would most benefit poor families, whose kids currently have absolutely no choice.
 
Hobbit said:
Oh, don't get smart with me. Whether or not my kids one day go to private school, it still won't affect the public school system, as it will still recieve a huge sum of money from my property tax. I shouldn't have to pay for school twice. Although it's a far cry from privatization and subsidation, just allowing parents a voucher worth, say, 90% of what the district would spent on their kids' education that can be used to either put them in private school or move them to a better public school would cause a drastic change overnight.

The fact is that as much as the Democrats defend the current public school system using the poor as a pawn, voucher systems or privatization and subsidation would most benefit poor families, whose kids currently have absolutely no choice.

Your original point was that public schools had nobody to compete with. Now you bring up vouchers. Thing is, public schools do have competition - private schools. Whether you like it or not, whether you decide to put your kids in one or not, whether the "poor" benefit or not - you said public schools had no competition. You are wrong.
 
Dr Grump said:
Your original point was that public schools had nobody to compete with. Now you bring up vouchers. Thing is, public schools do have competition - private schools. Whether you like it or not, whether you decide to put your kids in one or not, whether the "poor" benefit or not - you said public schools had no competition. You are wrong.

You fail to get the point, so let me make it abundantly clear. If you send your children to private school, the public school still gets your f***ing money or you go to jail. Competition would mean that there was a way you could take your business elsewhere. It isn't competition if you have to pay them anyway. If you have to pay Exxon for gas, then either get Exxon gas or pay again for Shell gas, does Exxon still have competition, even thought they get the same amount of money whether you use them or not?
 
Hobbit said:
You fail to get the point, so let me make it abundantly clear. If you send your children to private school, the public school still gets your f***ing money or you go to jail. Competition would mean that there was a way you could take your business elsewhere. It isn't competition if you have to pay them anyway. If you have to pay Exxon for gas, then either get Exxon gas or pay again for Shell gas, does Exxon still have competition, even thought they get the same amount of money whether you use them or not?

And I was talking about a choice of education, not how you pay for it.
 
Dr Grump said:
And I was talking about a choice of education, not how you pay for it.

You just can't seem to get it. It's called free market economics. If the public schools suffer no lack of funding from lack of business, they have no valid competition, ergo they have no incentive to do well, ergo they will only do what is required to avoid enough outcry to cut their funding. In a free market society, any business will do as little work as it can get away with and still turn the same profit. The same holds true for schools, which must do little to maintain their tax funding.

And if you look at my original post, I specifically used the word 'compete.' I never said that you had to send kids to public schools. I stated that public schools don't have to compete with anyone, which is 100% true. And if you still fail to grasp that concept, it's very indicative of the fact that you were taught by a government school with no incentive to do very well.
 
Hobbit said:
You just can't seem to get it. It's called free market economics. If the public schools suffer no lack of funding from lack of business, they have no valid competition, ergo they have no incentive to do well, ergo they will only do what is required to avoid enough outcry to cut their funding. In a free market society, any business will do as little work as it can get away with and still turn the same profit. The same holds true for schools, which must do little to maintain their tax funding.

Fair enough.

Hobbit said:
it's very indicative of the fact that you were taught by a government school with no incentive to do very well.

I went to a private school... ;)
 
onthefence said:
Why should it matter? He pays for the schools, whether he uses them or not. As long as he pays his taxes, he can bitch about them all he wants to. ;)

It only matters because it's very easy to comment in the abstract based on things one reads. Not that the opinions aren't valid, but he also isn't juggling paying for a couple of kids in private school while saving for the college and all that. Plus, I find that the quality of public school education can differ greatly from district to district, even within the same city or county.
 

Forum List

Back
Top