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.