Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Misplaced furor

You know how some restaurants are under fire from liberals because they're firing people? Don't blame the restaurants. Blame Obamacare. You see, when a law requires a business to spend even more money on employees' health insurance for those who work over 30 hours a week - and the fact that they have to provide health insurance at all - means that they can't afford as many employees and preserve any sort of profit to keep the business going. If businesses lose money for whatever reason, they have to make cuts to preserve the future of the business. They don't run on air. They run on money. This should be common sense.

Same thing for individuals. If people have bigger costs of living put on them with the same or even lower income, they have to make cuts in their spending. Maybe replace restaurants with meals at homes, cut back on trips to avoid paying for the extra gas money, maybe get another job to make ends meet. This is what normal people do: they live within their means.

I'd like to see the same common sense applied to government. If the government gets less revenue because fewer people are working or whatever the reason, the government should cut spending to match revenue. Period. Live within their means.

Now, sometimes people get caught up in credit card debt and it's not pretty. Just as our elected politicians spending more federal money than they get in federal revenue isn't pretty. We're headed for a fiscal cliff. Already the deficit exceeds $16T and debt per capita is far worse than Greece. Ahead of us lie downgrades, government cuts (if we're smart enough to elect politicians who favor this), tax increases... not pretty. Yet so many liberals are still in denial that government debt is a problem...

I read that the government spends $60k per welfare family! If government just gave that money directly to the welfare families, there would be no poverty in this country. Instead, most of it is absorbed in paying government officials. Overhead. Ineffective. Inefficient. Private charity always tops government welfare for distributing aid efficiently and effectively. Look at Sandy.

Therefore, the next time you see liberal media ire at firings and layoffs and bankruptcies (you won't see their ire at unemployment - that means buying votes with benefits, in their book), look no further than the liberal policies causing them. Reckless government spending and even more carelessly crafted government programs have led us exactly where we are today. Not that you will ever see the liberal news media admit as much.

Government bites the hands that feed it. Instead of us punishing them, it's like we haven't realized that the bites are doing us serious harm! Maybe we think we're the dog. We're not. We have the power to force government spending cuts instead of only taxes increases on us to cover for their bad management. Of course, maybe we really are the dog if we've got a majority of people voting for these kinds of policies, but I don't believe that's a true majority of opinion. Either way, our anger is misdirected if it's focused on those who work and employ in this country.

Contact your representatives today and let them know what you expect of them to earn your vote.

2 comments:

  1. This may be the single greatest irritant to me about the Obama administration - the complete and utter disregard for the taxpayer's dollar, the shameless hiring of useless gov't workers, and the obviousness of buying votes through entitlement expansion. It has never been so blatant to see why a Republic truly is hard to keep - people become so enslaved to the money they don't realize they have lost freedom. And yet another reason Romney would have been perfect for the job - he's a professional cost cutter for crying out loud! And why I am so discouraged because another one like him will not be coming around any time soon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In terms of misplaced furor, the government is not spending $60k on each "welfare family," and it's disingenuous to report that they're spending $60K per "welfare family" since the "welfare programs" included in the report (such as food stamps, 47,000,000 recipients) are often going to many more recipients than just households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 (16,807,785).

    In addition, "welfare" has traditionally referred to TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). However this report is counting 83 separate (and very different) programs as "welfare," including Pell Grants, public works spending, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Head Start and many others.

    You can read the entire report here: http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=0f87b42d-f182-4b3d-8ae2-fa8ac8a8edad (PDF). Also check out the comments here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/f79/link_how_rational_is_the_us_federal_state/

    ReplyDelete