False Blame in London
Written by Brian Garst, Posted in Big Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society
A growing chorus of clacking commentators has determined the cause of the London riots to be something called “austerity.” This menace is apparently to blame for the whole sordid affair. As an incarnation of pure evil, “austerity” has crept into the homes of hapless Londoners, snatching their rightful belongings – and sometimes even their futures – right out from under them. Quite understandably this has agitated the poor chaps, sending them into a mindless, criminal rage.
Poppycock!
There are two significant problems with this lazy, statist narrative. The first is simple: there has been no austerity. Here’s government spending in the UK in recent years (the last few years are projections):
So 2011 will see ever so slightly less spending as a percentage of GDP than 2010, not even dropping a full percentage point. Are we really to believe that such a minuscule shift could spark such an eruption of righteous anger?
But these aren’t even actually cuts. Spending increased from 2010 to 2011, and in this chart it does so each year thereafter. Simply holding spending growth to less than the growth of the economy allows the total burden of government to fall without actually making cuts. The statists nevertheless label such increase as “cuts” because they operate in a fantasy land where expected increases are the norm, and any increase less than they desire is therefore a cut. We see the same dishonesty right here in America, as evidenced by the recent debt ceiling debate.
Getting back to the issue. By 2015 spending as a percentage of the British economy is expected to be no lower than it was as recently as 2008. It will be higher, in fact. Is that really a rioting offense? How can anyone honestly claim massive social unrest based on such figures? It defies reason.
But the second problem with the blame austerity crowd’s logic is that even if there were significant budget cuts, they would still not be to blame. Austerity is no more to blame for the aftermath of runaway government spending and rampant dependency than is sobriety responsible for the addict suffering withdrawal. Dependent British citizens desperately lashing out for their next government fix would have only themselves and their enablers to blame, not the loved ones who finally stepped in and called an intervention.
No matter how you slice it, the statist argument falls flat. So why is it even being made in the first place? Well, that’s easy. It’s pre-emptive. The welfare state is falling out of favor as it slowly collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. Enamored with the power of big government, statists are nevertheless in denial to this fact, but still they feel the public pressure mounting against them and are unwilling to let go of their grip on authority. So now they’re conjuring a boogey-man to scare the peasants back into line. You can’t cut our budgets and our power, they’ll say, just look at what it’s done in London!
“Poppycock!” we’ll reply.
I serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.