Simple Economics

Our government services are being cut, yet the money we contribute is not. In private business one has the option, if services are not up to a certain standard or if services are cut, to change to a different company. With government it is not that simple. We the people are forced to pay for services that are many times sub-par or under-performing. This includes an entire array of government services from roads, to schools, to trash pickup to welfare and countless other government programs. First, I will admit that some of these programs are necessary and they are difficult to solve. Yet, it goes without saying that there is waste out there. However, what really irks me is when services are cut, but my taxes aren't. You are still charging me as much for less service? This mostly applies to local governments in the forms of property taxes which go to roads, trash removal, snow removal etc.

The reason for these cuts in services is because of a decrease in tax revenues. During this recession the reason can be because of unemployment or for those special places like Michigan, it is not only unemployment but also because people are leaving the state. Yet, some of the elected officials, be it on city councils, county commissions or even the legislature will seek to increase taxes to keep services. There is really no better time to get the financial house of the government in order when money is tight. This is the time that our elected officials can really look at what programs we have and decide if they are truly necessary.

While some local government programs are nice, ie. art grants, festivals etc. one has to wonder though if that is truly essential. Instead of cutting those things that aren't essential to the public, services such as snow removal, road repairs or police are cut, while at the same time, we can all breath a sigh of relief because the local art grant is still intact (although because there are less employees plowing the roads, some many not be able to attend the art function).

Rather than get the finances straight, the government will seek to increase revenues rather than make the difficult decisions. One city council member from East Lansing, MI recently said after the local council voted to cut $2 million dollars ""None of us enjoy this, none of us took this position thinking we would have to manage this type of situation." Clearly no one enjoys cutting that kind of money from a budget and no one really plans for the tough decisions, but isn't that what our elected officials are supposed to do? Clearly the job isn't a cake walk, but that is why we are supposed to elect the best and brightest I thought? I have no sympathy for an elected official who whines about having to make tough decisions-that's why we elected you. As ol' Harry Truman used to say "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen".

It is simple economics folks, if you take money from citizens (ie. higher taxes) they have less money to spend (businesses make less revenues and have to lay-off employees). So to elected officials around the world: we have no sympathy that you have to do your job, but in the process of doing so, remember that each dollar you take away from private citizens you are harming your electorate.

Green Jobs

The idea of so called "green jobs" that is steamrolling across the country is a very weak minded plan to fix the American economy. First, by putting so much faith in something that really has not been around that long has dangerous repercussions. Remember the technology boom of the 90's? What happened since? While clearly technology is the way of the world now, many of the jobs that the "tech boom" created are now lost. Millions of investment was lost and there are some economists who argue that the tech boom is one of the reasons why our economy fell into the most recent recession.

But what does moving towards a "green" economy mean? Aside from the "putting all of your eggs into one basket" mentality, "green" jobs would equate to more regulation. Some states have already completely reset the environmental standards on appliances and Congress was already pushing a bill that would allow for each individual state to set its own emissions standards. Is this really something that we want to allow, when currently the "science" of global warming, (or what is now more fashionably termed "climate change") is unraveling?

The reason why many liberal politicians are pushing for "green jobs" is because being "green" is a fashionable fad. Many are out to reduce, reuse and recycle. It is one thing to want to this on your own, but it is another to mandate it. In Michigan there is a 10 cent deposit on all carbonated beverages. If you return the can or bottle, you get your 10 cents back. Interesting way of manipulating the market eh? But, the kicker is it is actually illegal to throw your can or bottle away in the trash. Oh, and another perk is the millions of dollars that people like Al Gore stand to make having put all of their eggs in green movement.

So we have the fad of all things "green" but isn't it dangerous to not diversify the economy? Michigan is a disaster now because they constantly relied not just on the auto industry by manufacturing in general. If Michigan's Governor Granholm wants to continue that trend of putting your eggs in one basket, then by all means, push her Green Jobs initiative.

What happens if the green movement falls apart? Being green can be expensive and with the economy the way it is, many can't afford to be fashionable for the sake of being fashionable. So should our government be putting millions, possibly billions of dollars into a movement that may just fizzle out? Of course, this brings up the debate of whether or not government should be investing in private industry anyway; that is a story for another day.

Found this on the net

www.culturalgadfly.com

While my intention here is not to be an “alarmist”, I do hope that people will heed some of the advice or information that I am going to discuss. Right now, individual freedom is on the fast track towards disappearing here in the United States. It starts with slowly taking away little freedoms, such as the light bulbs you can use, or the kind of plants you can grow, and it increases to what kind of car you can drive.

They tell you who can and can’t be on the radio or tv. They tell you what you can read, or can’t read. They tax you for the choices you make like drinking, or smoking. They tell a private business that they can’t allow a legal activity on their own premises (like smoking). Then the city or local government wants to a private company to build a mini-mall or private condo unit in town, and the city uses eminent domain to take your house, or rather they designate it as “blighted”.

They take away a private citizens right to bear arms, this way they become defenseless against the state to protect their own (formerly) private property. They use fear tactics (”Our economy may never recover unless…”-Pres. Obama), or the environmental lobby using fear tactics regarding global warming.

They teach our children collectivism, while teaching that everyone should get a ribbon because everyone is just as good, when really they are setting up our future for failure. There is competition in life, get used to it. They want Card Check laws, so that when employees vote to join a Union, it is an open vote, rather than the sacred right to an secret ballot, this way thuggery can occur, and people can be forced into supporting something that they may not have wanted to support.

We will all be forced to pay more taxes, to support more government programs, that really only enslave us as citizens more. The masses shout “give me, give me, give me”; yet they need to head this advice:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have”-Gerald R. Ford

Beware America, unless we keep a close eye on just the small things, like lightbulb regulation, we will some day in the not too distant future lose the rights for the big things, like private property; or possibly even your right to exist.

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”-Ayn Rand

Term Limits?

During the 1990's here in Michigan, the people passed a constitutional amendment forcing term limits on all elected state offices, except those of the judiciary, and state university boards of education. The Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State are limited to two, four year terms. The state representatives are limited to three, two year terms, and the state senate is limited to two, four year terms.

Currently, our state, which was up until technically December of 2007, suffering from a single state recession for the last seven years. Our state is facing for the third consecutive year in a row, a budget deficit. Unemployment is over 10%.

Now, what does this have to do with term limits? Well, for starters because of the limit on how many years someone can serve, which leads to a high turnover rate, the experience is lacking in Lansing. It is understandable looking back why the idea of term limits was desirable. At the time there were people who had been in office for 10, 15 or even 20 years. The members of the opposite party of those long serving elected officials saw term limits as a way to bring in new blood, and possibly blood of their party. If you can't beat your opponent in a fair fight, take him out of the game completely.

Yes, when someone has been in office for decades, the "good ole boy" system comes to the mind of many people. However, what is lost in the effort to rid the system of the "good ole boys" is that experience gained, political alliances and political capital are lost. Sure, nobody likes the "backroom" deals, but they get things done. There should be an open process, but there is nothing wrong with "politicking".

Overturning term limits, also helps to create more bipartisan cooperation whereas now because of the high turnover rate, the partisanship can become extremely virulent. While the idea of "fresh, new blood" is appealing, should not the choice be up to the voters of each individual district?

It IS A Wonderful Life

Every Thanksgiving for at least the last few years I try to make it a point to watch Frank Capra's classic "It's A Wonderful Life". This year, while allowing my turkey and stuffing to properly digest I sat down with my girlfriend to begin watching this timeless classic. The movie, was entertaining as always, however, it made me start to think.

I began pondering how this movie relates today. The character of George Bailey played by Jimmy Stewart can be see as both the general citizen who is hurting from this economic crisis, or even can be seen as an auto company or financial institution (after all he was the Executive Officer of the Bailey Bros. Building & Loan) looking to the government or the cranky, wealthy old man Mr. Potter who is played by Lionel Barrymore, (yes Drew Barrymore's grandfather) to bail him out.

Sure George Bailey is an upstanding citizen who just got caught in a pickle, just an accident that could end up in a jail sentence for misappropriating $8,000, which was a lot back then. However, as I was thinking about whether or not he could be compared to the auto companies asking the government for a bailout which as I mentioned he did go ask the mean old Mr. Potter for some help, who crankily turned his back on poor George Bailey, he even called the police to have them issue a warrant for his arrest.

With nowhere left to turn, George Bailey considers suicide, only to be shown what the world would look like with George Bailey. It looked horrible in his eyes. I am sure that the auto companies think the world would be horrible without them too, however the nation would get over it and a new one would come along.

In the end however, (I hope I am not spoiling the movie, if you haven't seen it you must be living in North Korea) George Bailey is not saved by the government, or the wealthy Mr. Potter, he is saved by his friends. His friends give/loan him the money needed to pay the lost amount of money.

The end of this movie epitomizes what capitalism and conservatism are truly about. Friends, neighbors, fellow citizens help out the man in need. Throughout the movie George Bailey is always lending a helping hand, even loaning out his own wedding money during the depression. It wasn't the government that came in and fixed the problems; the neighbors did.

Conservatives don't think that a single mom with children shouldn't be helped out, we just don't think that government should be doing it. Wouldn't it be great, if instead of going on welfare or going on unemployment when one lost his job, his neighbors would invite his family over for a meal or two. Or the community pitched in to help supplement the bills. That is what conservatism is about, allowing for people to do the work.

As Clarence the Guardian Angel inscribed in Tom Sawyer in the end of the movie "No man is a failure who has friends". Helping out fellow man is what we are supposed to do and we are supposed to actually do it, not be lazy and let the government throw a check and some government cheese at him; we are supposed to help out - with however much or little we can.

America on the Road Toward Socialism

America has just elected its first President with socialistic tendencies, Barack Obama has said he "wants to spread the wealth". Our government is bailing out financial institutions and in return the government is getting a stake in the banks-and we are talking a share where they actually have a say in how the bank operates. Now, our government wants the same for the automobile industry. They ("they" being Democrats and some Republicans) want to give the auto industry somewhere to the tune of 25 billion dollars (insert Dr. Evil pinky to mouth and evil laugh) and in return get a share of the auto industry as well.

Now, the Democrats are smart, they know that the American public would never allow for Congress to pass legislation that would give them a stake in any private company; yet these tricky tricky people are slowly taking over private enterprise in this country.

I heard Glenn Beck say on the radio this morning that letting the auto companies die out is like having surgery. It may hurt for a while, but eventually it is for the better. Do I want Michigan to go under? Absolutely not. But should we the tax payers be allowing the government to give out my money to a private corporation, which in turn will hand over shares of itself to the government-I think not my friend.

This is a scary time that we are living in, and I don't mean that because people are losing their investments, homes and jobs-these things can rebound, but once this nation is headed down the road of government controlled enterprise it is very very hard to get back toward free enterprise.

Ironically enough Herbert Hoover said these two quotes that I found last night, the first is "Every time the government is forced to act, we lose something in self-reliance, character and initiative".

The second quote reads "The course of unbalanced budgets lead to ruin."

Now as I mentioned there is some irony here, because some claim that Hoover's financial policies were responsible for the Great Depression, but both of these quotes ring true. We are on the verge of handing our individualism, our private property and with that our liberty to the government.

To all of those who wanted "change" from Obama and the Democrats you sent to congress, just be careful what you wish for.

A government large enough...

Our country needs a new contract with America. We (conservatives) need to show the nation that we are still here, and we aren't all moderates. We need to show this nation that the best way for freedom is to let the free market work, reduce governmental waste and regulation, and keep government small. As President Gerald R. Ford (who by the way was not close to being the most conservative president we ever had) said "a government large enough to give you everything you want, is large enough to take away everything you had".

We need to remember this, especially with the new liberal "mandate" that was given to the Democrats eight days ago. If they are going to require people to have health care, fine, but what are they going to take away? Money? Government Programs, what? Obama never said during the campaign what he was going to do. The want to raise taxes on the rich, ok, but if you do that, who is going to create the jobs that the wealthy create?

On the issue of taxes, Obama said he wasn't going to raise taxes on anyone who makes $250,000 then it changed to $200,000 then Biden said $150,000, the point is we really don't know the cap. However, what the media didn't tell you is that Obama is going to let the Bush tax cuts expire, which will make all (nearly every tax grade) taxes increase. How is that not a tax hike?

The point in this essay is, if the Republicans want to fight back, they need to create another contract with America. Let's not forget that the Republicans took over congress after Clinton was President for only two years. We need to pledge to cut the fat, lower people's taxes, and show the liberals who will be running the show that raising taxes and regulations won't create jobs, it will only harm the economy even more.

It is going to be one helluva rocky ride these next few years, but someone in the conservative movement needs to be the standard bearer who says "enough is enough".