The federal spending issues we are experiencing today are difficult to frame in ordinary language due to the scale of the debt. The latest short-term extension of the 2011 fiscal budget included $6 Billion in spending cuts, which Democrat leaders chastised as “slashing” the budget.
This posting on Power Line places these minuscule cuts into a proper perspective by comparing them to a Big Mac Value Meal. Caution, don’t read if you are hungry!
Russ Roberts, a economist and blogger at Cafe Hayek, posted his opening remarks to a Congressional subcommittee. He does a great job explaining what I refer to as “the first rule of holes”, as it relates to the economy.
Conservatives are often excoriated for not being caring enough about others. Yet it is interesting that many, though certainly not all, of conservatives are strongly religious. Does good religion not call for helping others?
The decision of whether to help another is very personal. It requires the person who is able to assist to make a judgment as to whether or not helping is in fact the right thing to do in a given situation. For example, if your child has gotten in trouble for doing something wrong, the parent needs to determine if bailing the child out is better than the child learning from the situation.
Progressives think that society should help others. They further believe that the government is in a unique position to ensure everyone shares “fairly” in the helping of unfortunate citizens. This approach of creating “charity” fails because of three primary reasons:
1. The person from whom money is taken from is further robbed of the opportunity of personnally embracing the idea of charity. Over time, the state taking on this responsibility encourages individuals to not feel the personal burden of helping others. I believe we see this effect at play in our society over the past several decades.
2. The assistance given out by a state agency cannot be based on individual judgment and experience. Instead, the agency must establish a complex set of rules by which its staff must follow in order to be consistent. This means that benefits are not handed out wisely and are wasted on situations that most ordinary citizens could see are clearly fruitless.
3. The recipient is also robbed of an opportunity for personal growth, because the process does not create accountability. The recipient just has to follow a set of rules, and they get the benefit. The net result is that recipients become experts at gaming the rules, instead of learning how to become more productive and useful to society.
So, we are faced with a decision as to who is more noble? It is the conservative who believes that charity is best done by the individual, which may result in some people not being helped? Or is it the liberal that believes the state must ensure no one falls through the cracks by forcing “charity” from its citizens?
This short clip from Reason.TV does a nice job making the argument for the freedom of the individual.
As a small business owner, I get quite upset when a politician or news commentator excoriates businesses for their “profit motive” and “greed”. While I understand that some business executives have abused their positions for personal gain, the reality is that a business only succeeds if it satisfies its customers better than the competition.
When the consequences of failure rest on the owners of the company, there is a proper balance of the risk of success and failure. The owner will typically make rational decisions regarding what risks to take to make the company successful, knowing that the owner will also have to bear the results of failure. The reward of success is profit (financial or of another type).
What person or entity does not do something for personal benefit? Does the politician volunteer for free, or does he profit from income and power granted to his position? Does the newscaster as to be paid for hosting the news program, and does he not also benefit from his potential influence?
If you are transacting business with someone who clearly states he is in the transaction to benefit himself, and you can choose whether or not to do business with him, you can at least be confident you know his motives.
On the contrary, if someone is telling you they are going to help you for no benefit to them, you should be very concerned as that person’s motives are at best naive and at worst sinister.
This article by Walter Williams (IBD Editorials) is a further clarification of this concept.
I have often wondered why it is so frustrating to discuss the merits of various issues with someone who has a Left political view point. When I try to discuss the issues, they seem to get caught up with the messenger or the color of the skin of the idea’s supporters.
If you have felt this same frustration, I encourage you to read this article by Dennis Prager, who I believe does a great job in clarifying why such a debate of ideas with someone on the Left is so difficult.
As we mark the passing of another Earth Day and contemplate the list of pending disasters that are thrust upon us by its supporters, it is helpful to see what the “intellectuals” were saying at Earth Day 1970.
This is a great clip from a question and answer session at Stanford University in 1978 where Dr. Friedman is asked about the government’s responsibility to help the poor. I really miss hearing someone who can explain these key concepts in clear, precise, and compelling language like Dr. Friedman.
What many people who have never started a business do not realize is that the entrepreneurs put so much on the line, especially early on in the business.
Many have to finance their business with their own home, must go without income for months during the start-up phase, and think about their business virtually all day (and often all night). The entrepreneurs in this video created by Caleb Brown, and economics student at GMU, discusses the additional challenges when you own your business with your spouse.
I can totally relate to this story since my wife and I own our business. We moved into our first office three months after 9.11. We had four children, and had to go without insurance for nearly a year. Our business started slowly, so we had no income for over nine months. We went without a second vehicle and cut back everything. Ten years later, we have a thriving business and six employees.
Unfortunately, our federal government is lead by a team of individuals who have never gone through the trials of starting and running a business. So all they see is our current success, and insist that it is their moral obligation to take a “fair share” of our success to pay for whatever entitlement programs they want to enact.
And they wonder why small businesses are struggling to create the new jobs they want to lower unemployment so that they get re-elected.
Insurance companies that provide health insurance are not going to be allowed to raise their rates in Massachusetts, despite significant increases in their costs. What will happen next? They will stop doing business in the state, leaving only the government to provide such service.
Sounds like a preview of Obamacare.
I started The Producer’s Strike SM series months ago, but delayed the final installment as I had hoped the public’s outcry against what the Looters were doing would eliminate the need for the next step. Clearly, I was overly optimistic in believing that the current political leaders would listen to the citizens that placed them in office.
Looters believe they have a moral obligation to take from one group (whom they often demonize) and give to another group (who become Moochers). Over the past year, we have seen a ballooning in the list of Moochers. They include Wall Street firm, General Motors, Chrysler, the State of Nebraska, and Unions.
The Looters now believe they should be running our health care system. It’s just another way to create more Moochers. Feel the power of the Looters growing? Can you just see the smug little smiles on their faces as the Looters announce this great step forward for our country and the new right to health care? Aren’t they just the greatest among us?
It makes me sick.
Do you feel the same? But what can we do?
Yes, we will have a voice in November 2010, and we surely will be motivated to kick them out. But we are already hearing about the next things on the agenda.
Let’s have the government generate all student loans. Oh, you want to get a degree in theology, well that is not something the government can sponsor – you know the separation of church and state thing.
Cap-and-trade? Well, how else can we cut our energy use except by raising costs on everyone?
Then there is immigration reform. I can’t imagine how that will turn out.
My point is that we cannot wait until November. We need to act now.
It is time to for the Producers Strike!
What is the Producers Strike? It is designed to be very simple so that every Producer can participate.
As I mentioned in Part 2 of this series, the Producers and Workers I personally know have all experienced financial struggles at some point, and have come out wiser or stronger. We know the value of money. We know that wealth comes from our own effort and decisions. We also know how to do without in the near term in order to reach long-term goals.
The Producers Strike simply returns us to our frugal spending habits. It means we will no longer purchase any goods that we do not need (yes, we know the difference between need and want). We delay all purchases of any non-essential goods until our leaders see that not only do Producers drive job creation (through our hiring), but also drive the economy through the investment of our wealth (our capital) and the spending of our wealth (consumption).
We will put our wealth on strike. No more extraneous purchases. Delay investment in new economic activity. Stop taking risks with our businesses.
What will be the result? It will be like draining the life-blood from a body. The body will start to fail, and the Looters, who claim their actions will make the economy better, will be shown for what they really are — parasites.
I realize that this will likely impact other Producers. But it is the only way to get the Looters to see that they will no longer get a free ride. We must get the parasitic Looters to release from the economic body of our nation. Like removing a tick from a dog, it will take heat or something that has a nasty taste.
Producers are willing to contribute from our wealth to a government that works for its citizens by primarily keeping the peace and order of the country. We will even fund portions of the government to provide for our fellow citizens who have an emergency situation. But do not expect for the Producers of this country to be quietly drained of our life to feed any Moocher the Looters can create.
Some have already started to strike. In Colorado, Amazon.com pulled out of their business relations with local websites after the State legislature enacted a new tax that would affect their business. A recent polling of private-practice physicians shows that if ObamaCare passes, a large percent likely will retire early or simply close their doors.
We will continue our Producers Strike until the Looters that currently run our government are removed and life-draining legislation is defeated.
