Eating Up the Usufruct of the Lands

by | May 24, 2011

After Standard & Poors (S&P) lowered the credit rating of the federal government, an Obama administration official said, “This is a facts-be-damned decision.” So what are the facts? The facts are: The federal government had “revenues” of $2.16 trillion in 2010 The federal government has a debt of more than $13 trillion, or just under […]

After Standard & Poors (S&P) lowered the credit rating of the federal government, an Obama administration official said, “This is a facts-be-damned decision.” So what are the facts?

The facts are:

  • The federal government had “revenues” of $2.16 trillion in 2010
  • The federal government has a debt of more than $13 trillion, or just under six times its annual “revenue”
  • The federal government is running deficits over $1 trillion, and is expected to continue to do so into the foreseeable future
  • The federal government’s unfunded liabilities are estimated to be more than $100 trillion

To put this in perspective, let us apply the same ratios to an average American family. The median family income is about $50,000.  If the average family followed the lead of the federal government, it would have debt of about $300,000. It would continue to add $25,000 to that debt each year. What do you think that family’s credit score would be? How long would creditors allow that family to live well beyond its means? Do you think that they could easily obtain more credit?

Of course, the federal government is not bound by the same rules as ordinary citizens. The federal government can simply reach into your wallet and take more money. If you did that, you’d be arrested. If the government does it, it is “shared sacrifice.”

There is certainly something damning about the S&P downgrade. But it isn’t S&P that should be damned.

In a letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

[N]o man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the payment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come; and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which is the reverse of our principle.

Isn’t the federal deficit eating “up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come”? Isn’t the government obligating future generations to pay for the profligacy of the dead?

For politicians, the “future” is limited to the next election. That means offering today’s voters promises that can only be kept by piling up mountains of debt. And voters, while they might decry the federal deficits, demand that the government leave programs like Social Security and Medicare untouched. So who is the guilty party? Voters or politicians who pander to them?

The average family will not solve its financial woes by simply bringing in more money. Nor can the federal government. The only rational solution to the budget deficit is to cut spending dramatically. But that will not occur until voters quit eating up the usufruct of the lands.

Brian Phillips is the founder of the Texas Institute for Property Rights. Brian has been defending property rights for nearly thirty years. He played a key role in defeating zoning in Houston, Texas, and in Hobbs, New Mexico. He is the author of three books: Individual Rights and Government Wrongs, The Innovator Versus the Collective, and Principles and Property Rights. Visit his website at texasipr.com.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

The Young in America Turn Against Capitalism

The Young in America Turn Against Capitalism

If young people worry and wonder about their retirement future, their health care, and medical needs, their chance to afford a place to live, and a reasonable possibility for their lives to be better and more prosperous than their parents, it is precisely because government over the decades has either taken over or heavy- handedly imposed itself over all these and other sectors of the American economy — and brought them to financial crisis and imbalance.

The Justice of an All-Volunteer Military

The Justice of an All-Volunteer Military

The most equitable and just sharing of the burden of America’s military is assured by its all-volunteer nature, and that conscription would be inequitable and unjust.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest