I want someone to explain to me the contradicting positions of American conservatives. They want to cut government spending, but want government to do something when disaster strikes. They want to deregulate, but haven't said how deregulation helps preserve consumer confidence. They want small government, but only in areas that benefit their causes. They don't like redistribution of wealth, but don't mind getting government subsidies themselves. Help me understand.
CUT THIS
Conservatives say that the President's economic policies aren't working. In all honesty, with a 9.1%unemployment rate, there is obviously a problem. They say that spending wantonly has increased the deficit while the unemployment rate continues to rise. They site these facts as proof that Obama isn't the "economist-in-chief" we elected him to be.
But no one has explained why the Congress (specifically, the House of Representatives), which has the power of the purse as per the US Constitution, didn't do anything about the deficit or deficit spending before. Where were the fiscal hawks when President Bush was racking up the debt with two wars? I didn't hear anyone complaining as loudly then as they are now about cutting spending. Where was the Tea Party then?
Social Security has come under attack. Granted, people are drawing more from it than are paying to it. That's a serious problem that needs resolution. But its called Social "Security" for a reason. People like knowing that there will be something for them in their old age regardless of the economic climate. Imagine for a moment if the Bush administration had succeeded in privatizing Social Security before the "great recession". Imagine the plight of retired, or retirement-eligible folks losing not only their 401k, but their newly privatized social security benefits. And with nothing to show for all their years of work, they would do what? Probably get on public assistance since the likelihood of going back to work for many of them would be slim. Would that not raise the financial burden on sates and municipal governments, undoing the changes made to the system? Imagine all those people from the "greatest generation" losing their homes because the social security check they were counting on to supplement their income never came. If Social Security should be private and the current income redistribution is offensive to you, then please give your social security benefit back to Uncle Sam. Withdraw your application for benefits, or don't file a claim at all. That's how I will know you are serious.
Here's an idea: those Tea Party members of congress who want to cut everything should begin by cutting their own salaries and the salaries of their staff. Show 'em you mean business.
DEREGULATION
Conservative America says they want government to stay out of their business. Well, they want "small government". They say they want federal deregulation so that economic forces can work as they textbooks say it can. But, no one has explained how the deregulation they want now is different from the deregulation that occurred under Bush? How would the deregulation and the resulting free-for-all that contributed to the financial meltdown then, be prevented now?
BIG GOVERNMENT
So, we don't want oversized government. But after 911, government increased in size exponentially. Never mind the new agencies that were created and redefined roles of the ones that existed. What about the warrant-less wire taps? Increased government scrutiny of religious groups? Is that not big government? Is that not what the conservatives say they are against? But as a nation we seemed all too willing to give up some of those freedoms for Government-provided security. Who was it that said, 'those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither'?
Look at the controversy surrounding the religious cultural center that was to be constructed in NYC. People were up in arms. Some wanted government to get involved to prevent the establishment of the center. They wanted the building designated as a historical site to prevent the imam from building the center. But, I thought we didn't want government involved in our affairs. Government involvement in this matter seemed like big government to me. Surprisingly, mayor Bloomberg felt the same way.
And what of FEMA? Its seems like FEMA is the red-headed step child in all of this. Many of those who want smaller government live in states that are prone to the type of natural and unnatural disasters that FEMA funds are used to recover from. Does the Gulf Coast and Katrina ring any bells? How about the BP oil spill? Without government regulation and involvement who would have held BP's proverbial foot to the fire to hasten the clean up? Tell me a story. How would the BP scenario have played out had there been less Government regulation?
We can't have it both ways. You want government help when it suits you, but when government needs to help others, you cry foul. When the housing bubble popped many wondered why the SEC and other government agencies didn't do anything to prevent it. Simple Answer: when you de-prioritize regulation and oversight these things tend to happen. Bernie Madoff, anyone?
GOVERNMENT HANDOUT
What's up with farm subsidies? So, some farmer lost his crop due to a drought or flood, and my Uncle Sam is supposed to pay him for the loss. At the same time, that same farmer says that government is spending too much money and taxes too much. The logic is that the subsidies keep produce prices artificially low, which is good for the country as a whole. Well, Farmer Brown, if you don't like your government hand out, give it up. Let market forces reign. If that means you take a loss and prices go up, so be it. There is no difference between a farm subsidy and a welfare check. Both payments are made to keep people from being worse off than they could be without it.
Government can't keep spending like it has. Cuts need to be made. A big portion of cuts will result in the ending of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Other cuts could be made but not one person has specified where they would cut. Its always, "we have to take a scalpel to the budget" or "we still have to identify those areas". All those words to avoid saying that you don't know where to cut or don't want to say where you would cut because you don't want to piss off voters.
JUST SAY "NO"
All these fights between the Congress and the White House is like an architect and a contractor fighting over how to erect a building. Neither has a privilege of saying "no" all the time. They both have to work together to accomplish the goal. If they don't, the building doesn't get built; and we are all left looking at a big hole in the ground...kind of like our economy.
Thoughts?
Kevin Greene
No comments:
Post a Comment