You would think the tax coffers were bulging with the politicians proposing massive government spending to create jobs so the workers can pay taxes to fill up the coffers some more? What kind of thinking says that even though we are hopelessly in debt we should spend more to get out of debt?
If you trace the money from a historical perspective you soon discover it was the taxation of business and labor that funded the government. How did it get to the point that the government has so many funds that it can finance all who used to work and pay taxes? As they say in certain card games, “ Somebody’s lying.”
When the country was new there was no treasury department with a ton of money. Only whatever was surplus from production was confiscated to pay for the government services. Those who profited ( i.e. had some left over after their living expenses) were taxed. Then those who received a paycheck had deductions taken out because the government didn’t trust the taxpayers to pay them when the taxes were due and besides if you take out the taxes in deductions you get to use the money interest free. If a criminal mob tried this it would be instantly recognized for the fraud that it is. Legalizing criminal behavior is what the government does best.
Now before someone says I ‘m exaggerating here are a few examples of what I mean.
- A monopoly is illegal in the private sector but okay in the government. Examples Amtrak, the Post office, Social Security, Medicare, etc.
- Accounting must be strictly adhered to in the private sector. When a government agency audits a bank and closes it down it relies on honest accounting by the private company. The same standards applied to the government would have declared them bankrupt decades ago. The phony accounting for the inflation rate is outright fraud and deception. Google Boskin Commission to get he full particulars.
- The illusion that the government can mange a business ( which relies on profits to sustain itself) by taking one over can be easily dispelled by the history of government attempts and analyzing the nature of government and business. Suppose the government was going to supply everyone with shoes. Either they must borrow, print or tax to get revenue for machinery, buildings and transportation or they must take over an existing industry. They could sell some of the businesses they have already nationalized but that seldom happens, but it could. The shoes produced by the government should undergo market research to find out what the consumers might want. Then they would have to design, produce and market the shoes and if no one wanted what they offered they would have to borrow some more money to change styles or force people to either buy the ones they had or do without. Since there was no competition ( government seldom permits competitors although private schools do exist which shows how inadequate much of the public education system is) there is no cost control or bottom line to gauge performance. Therefore the drab fashion of bureaucrats rules what goes on your feet unless a black market emerges and you can get what you want if you can pay for it. In the meantime if the price of leather goes up because of a shortage of cowhides then the government either raise prices or dig into some obscure “fund” to subsidize the price to the consumer.
This “change” we are going to experience will make the misery of George W. Bush’s spending look like the good old days. All the changes coming from a President who is appointing many of the same old Clinton cronies with left wing agendas will only turn out to be socialism without the banner. It will be corrupt, full of bribery and deceit, inept and embarrassing. The speeches may sound good just as they did when Harold Hill pontificated about the band. There will be no band. The change we need is to recognize the value of the free market and how the decisions of the buyers and sellers without intermediaries from the government prodding and meddling will more accurately adjust more rapidly to supply and demand for all goods and services we need. This change will hopefully be recognized after the next four years of another experiment in too much government. This was written prior to Obama’s election. “Looks like it was pretty accurate” paraphrasing Omar Bradley in the movie “Patton”.Tags: pandering. Politics promises