A caveat before I begin. Our form of governance is not perfect, and I recognize that. Our economic system is not perfect, and I recognize that also. Holding these things up to the bar set by perfection will continually make them look like a poor second choice. That is what the bar of perfection will do for any idea, concept, or choice for economic or political solutions. That being said, both our republic, and our free market systems have performed their functions far better than any solutions set into practice by man so far. When I hear the arguments of the political left, many of them boil down to the this basic principle, which is, your system is not perfect, therefore we must spread misery equally. Punish the successful because there are some who have difficulties. When as a small child I asked how my eating something I did not like would help feed starving children in India, there was no real answer to that question which would ever satisfy me. Ending India’s Socialism was ultimately what put an end to the perpetual famine of that wonderful nation.
If there is one problem our founding fathers were not capable of solving, it was the politician. In one of the Federalist Papers authored by Thomas Jefferson, he warned against the formation of political parties. It was his belief that this would create a class of professional authoritarians, who would seek to remove accountability to a citizen electorate, and would use that as a means to increase the size and scope of federal authority. Prophetic words to be sure, but I am also afraid that Jefferson was unable to state an alternative. To my knowledge, nobody has since our founding as a nation. As much as I don’t trust the class of individual known as the politician, our current system of governance is still the best so far, and we have managed to hold them to at least a little accountability so far.
One of the reasons for my mistrust of politicians is the fact that they have learned a great universal truth, and have learned how to use that for their own interests. This in itself is not a bad thing, except that in many cases those interests are in direct opposition to those of us who would seek to retain our own freedoms and opportunities. Politicians you see are not interested in discussing reality with us. This is not because they think that we are unable to handle it, nor is it because they are terrified at the prospect of being tarred and feathered should we learn of their chicanery. It is only because they have learned how to get elected by convincing people that they would somehow be able to provide magical benefits to their constituents which would be paid for by others. By, “others,” I mean any source which is specifically not the folks voting in that election. In the case of national elections of course, the term, “others,” refers to a mythical creature known as the government. (I know that the government is not mythical. For the purposes of this discussion however, it may as well be. for while the government is considered to be an endless supply of all the resources necessary to accomplish whatever irresponsible promises made by politicians, the sad fact is that it is only able to dole out what it confiscates from the productive members of our society minus the considerable administrative costs of running it.) Which brings us to yesterday, a day when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D) Mars broke the mold of irresponsible buffoons.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday indicated Congress needs to worry about government jobs more than private-sector jobs, and that this is why Senate Democrats are pushing a bill aimed at shoring up teachers and first-responders.
“It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about,” Reid said on the Senate floor.
Reid was responding to recent comments from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who accused Democrats of purposefully pursuing higher taxes as part of the teacher/first-responder bill, S. 1723, so that Republicans would oppose it. McConnell said the bill was meant to fail in order to give Democrats an issue to run on in the 2012 election, but Reid said the Republicans are simply trying to defeat President Obama any way they can.
Reid was responding to recent comments from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who accused Democrats of purposefully pursuing higher taxes as part of the teacher/first-responder bill, S. 1723, so that Republicans would oppose it. McConnell said the bill was meant to fail in order to give Democrats an issue to run on in the 2012 election, but Reid said the Republicans are simply trying to defeat President Obama any way they can.
The link above takes you to a story which ran in HotAir yesterday. In it, Ed Morrisey wonkishly destroys the argument made by Reid with a few graphs from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, (a government agency which is a great example of those very considerable administrative costs I spoke to earlier.) My proof will not need near the complexity of Morrisey’s. Let’s start with this question, what does our government produce? A business operates by producing something of value, and selling that something to people who believe that they will benefit from that product. The transaction is completed when they feel that the value gained is greater than what amount of their own labors is being asked for in return. We’ll use gasoline for an example. I bought it yesterday at $3.36 a gallon. A gallon gets me to work and back. It was worth the price, as I will make more than $3.36 for the day’s labor. The government produces nothing. Any government service is only paid for by extracting those funds from the citizens. To add insult to stupidity, it does not even distribute those funds at a dollar for dollar rate. Don’t forget about the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the good people employed there. The average wage for our federal employees is close to $100,000 per year. There are a lot of federal employees, producing nothing, all with their little slice of the pie removed before a single benefit is paid. These hard working people, with jobs that by definition are an incredible waste also use material on their jobs. Computers, pens, staples, cars, e-mails, retreats to Hawaii, are all part of the equation as well. It does not take the math skills of Isaac Newton to realize that there is an inefficiency at work here.
All of this happens of course before the discussion even becomes really fun. In the market place, people are able to determine for themselves what it is they want produced. Our resources are used in an efficient manner, because when they are not, businesses lose money and go under. Not so with our government. When Harry Reid uses our money inefficiently, the government loses money and Harry Reid gets to subsidize his arrogance by attempting to coerce our wants through price controls, shortages, and payoffs.
Part of what worries me is that Harry Reid was elected to his office by seemingly intelligent people. Harry got elected this last time out by convincing the good people of his state that Sharon Angle was too far outside of the world of rational thought to be entrusted to look out for Nevada’s interests in the Senate. After a statement like the one made yesterday Nevada, you would have been better off electing Arnold the Talking Pig to the Senate. At least Arnold was the second most intelligent creature in the vacuous world of Hooterville. In case any of you, besides Harry Reid missed it over the summer, we had a huge national debate over the fact that we are broke. Being broke is a condition caused by spending more than you are producing. This is a simple concept that even a politician should get. Solving this problem will not come about by increasing our spending side of the equation while declaring that our productivity is honky dory. Harry Reid, and anyone else for that matter who even states this, let alone believes it, should be removed immediately from any national conversation, or at the very least fired during his next attempt at reelection.
VanGrungy sent me the following link to an article in the Toronto Sun by Warren Kinsella.
WWJD? Join hands with the Occupiers
I will not excerpt the article here because I consider it too blasphemous to repeat. But I have to rebut it somehow.
No way would Jesus ever have joined any kind of a mob.
Moreover, the Nazis, Communists, jihadis, and other anti-Christians who populate the “occupy” movement have made a career out of rejecting Jesus and everything that He stands for.
It is true that Jesus exhorted each of us, as individuals, to help the poor. But Jesus NEVER said that Caesar or Caesar’s officials should tax anybody to give that money to the poor. HUGE difference.
Kinsella’s assertion that “Jesus was no capitalist” is meaningless, in that the concept of capitalism did not exist in the ancient world. At present, the word “capitalist” has devolved into a slur that leftists hurl at their political enemies.
In the parable of the servants and the talents, Jesus made it clear that investing one’s assets (whatever those might be) in a prudent and productive manner is the right thing to do. Yes, I know, Rush Limbaugh used to joke about it, but all of our talents are on loan from God, and it behooves us to use them well, both out of respect for God, and so that we will have some surplus to use for helping others. There are good reasons why sloth is counted as one of the seven deadly sins.
It is always a bit dangerous to try to guess what Jesus would do, but I will give it a try; may He forgive me if I am wrong. I think that Jesus would have advised the “occupy” mobs to bathe, comb their hair, and put on clean clothes; to stop spewing hatred and envy; to serve others instead of demanding more for themselves; and to thank their Creator for the many advantages that they already have enjoyed.
– 1389AD
The Diary of Daedalus
website design was Built By All of Us
