A simple question
The country has divided into two camps, as usual. Those who think the Stimulus Package® will instantly rain wondrous miracles of prosperity on the country and those who think it is the work of the Antichrist designed to hobble our nation with an unbearable debt burden while not really helping anything. I have heard this latter stance at a personal level from family and friends and also at a national level, most recently this week from some of the GOP governors assembled for the governors' conference.
So I have a simple question. It is really, really simple. Let's see if I can set it up correctly with an example first. I think most people would agree that if they were offered free goods that they knew to be stolen it would be immoral and unethical to take the loot, even if they also knew they weren't going to be caught, and even if everyone around them were doing it, too. In fact, I believe our courts think the same thing - you can be charged and convicted for receiving stolen goods for doing just that.
Are you with me so far? I think you see where I am going with this.
So, if you are a true-blue fiscal conservative, someone who believes big government is immoral, someone who believes that the Stimulus Package® not only will not work, but is wrong, then isn't it immoral to benefit from it, either as a private person or as the governor of a state? Wouldn't it be better to not take the money, which would lower the amount of the cost of the bill, thereby helping the country save some of the money you don't think should be spent? On a personal level shouldn't you return your $400 or $800 tax credit? Shouldn't you make sure and not file for the $8,000 first time home buyer tax credit or the tax credit for buying energy efficient appliances? And if you're the Republican governor of a state, shouldn't you take a true stand and save our country billions and billions of dollars by refusing to take any of the state aid from the Feds?
That is, unless you don't really believe what you say. Unless you practice the morality of convenience. Unless you're just "in it for me" and your political "ethics" are just blather for cocktail parties to hide the fact you really are just a cheapskate who doesn't like to pay taxes.
I know I am roiling the waters a bit by combining "politics" and "ethics" into an oxymoronic implausibility. But I don't like people who say one thing and act another. I hereby call on each and every small government conservative in this country to simply refuse to participate in the Stimulus Package®. Just say no to your share of the pork. It's that easy.
Given the presidential election popular vote let's be gracious and say there are still 47% of the citizenry who are conservative. OK. Then here is the opportunity for conservatives to lead the way, to take the moral high ground they like to preach about holding, to prove their point, and most importantly, to be true patriots and save our beloved country $370,000,000,000 dollars (47% of $787 billion) through a selfless act, simply by refusing to receive stolen goods. Wouldn't that be the, ahem, "right" thing to do?
Or am I missing something?
10 comments:
I don't think you're missing a thing. I agree. One shouldn't take it if one believes it is wrong in the first place.
Yeahbut, that money is ours to begin with, it's tax money collected from citizens. So there's nothing wrong with taking stimulus money, it was yours to begin with.
Oh, butwait. If that's true, then we should be spending even more stimulus money. We should be draining the treasury to get that money back into the hands of its rightful owners. Sure, we probably shouldn't have collected those taxes in the first place, but we should at least be hosing the country down with the money that's already been collected.
Hmmm. It's a problem, isn't it?
All I can say is: Does that much money even exist? Or is it just air...like 1's and 0's on a computer, just being moved around? Because I can't imagine it.
Too much money in the hands of too few people. This is what capitalism gets us?
I can't believe I'm actually commenting on your "bait the readers" political post, Jim. :-)
You've had many great posts lately that I'd have much rather commented on, if time had permitted.
I stopped following politics and political rhetoric several years ago, primarily for the sake of my own sanity and well-being. So my response might sound really out-of-touch and unhip. If so, I apologize in advance...
I think your whole premise is flawed. If somebody steals something from me, then I'm not "receiving stolen goods" when the police find my stolen items and return them to me, the rightful owner.
In order for your argument to be valid, you would have to agree that the citizens of any state that doesn't get any money from the federal government also don't have to pay anything into the big federal kitty in the first place. Otherwise you have a form of "taxation without representation".
Government redistribution is inherently deeply flawed. It's horribly inefficient, and the entire process of who gets what is a political power struggle, not based in any way on justice or maximum benefit to those who need it most.
Of course, the biggest fallacy in your entire premise is that Republicans are actually small-government fiscal conservatives. They had plenty of time to prove or disprove that, and the results speak for themselves.
Erin,
It's called "fiat money". It exists because our government says it exists.
Scary. Scary like how my 12 year old the other day asked me "Why don't they just print more money?". Yeah, and pretty soon we can buy a loaf of bread for 100 billion dollars like in Zimbabwe.
In my politically uneducated opinion, we really need someone to play robin hood here, instead of borrowing nonexistent money from the future. That's like a paycheck advance loan and it's spelled t-r-o-u-b-l-e.
I think Erin is correct about this being a big "paycheck advance loan". Speaking as somebody who has gone through hard times and hit bottom before, and has taken such loans, it's just like standing in a deep hole with a shovel and digging it even deeper.
If anyone actually reads the entire page Jim linked to without eyes glazing over (a tall order), you'll notice that really, apart from knowing that it will increase debt and probably create a long-term drag on the private-sector economy, nobody really knows if this Stimulus is going to have much effect at all, either good or bad (which I think is one of Jim's points, that all the usual partisans will declare this the best/worst thing ever, simply because that's what they do). You would also find little gems like this near the bottom:
"The CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase federal budget deficits by $185 billion over the remaining months of fiscal year 2009, by $399 billion in 2010, by $134 billion in 2011, and by $787 billion over the 2009-2019 period."
I never really understood all the complicated discussions of what budget deficits and the national debt were. But at their most basic, they are simply the gap between income and expenditures. I guess when we run them up, we're mostly just borrowing against future generations, or becoming indebted to various foreign and domestic lenders.
I don't know of anybody (besides government) who would consider a continual state of spending more than you actually have a winning formula. But since promising more "free" goodies to everyone seems to be the way to get elected, and there is a deeply entrenched sense of entitlement and government dependence, I don't see any possible way this trend will ever be turned around.
Which is ultimately why, apart from occasionally being lured into commenting (like I've done here), I mostly try to just vote my conscience, avoid pointless political pontificating, and accept that things are what they are, regardless of what I say about them. So I'll just STFU now. :-)
We're taking the first time homebuyer's credit. And I don't feel bad, because it's not a handout, it has to be paid back starting with the 2010 taxes.
All the hype and fear that goes on has been interesting to me. Especially as a Christian, watching some groups of Christians freak out. Especially the whole "Obama is the anti-christ" thing. They didn't like me jumping into those conversations, because I'd always bring up the point that if he IS, then isn't that a good thing? That means the end of the world is nigh, and we'll all be chilling in heaven soon. Sounds good to me!
I guess that gets into a subject all on it's own though, about why so many Christians fear the end times. I thought that's what we've been waiting for, for the past almost-2000 years?
Oops, sorry Jim. I just re-read your entire original post again, and I'm afraid I may have expressed an opinion that was similar to the one that seems to have pissed you off in the first place. I didn't mean to do that, seriously.
I don't feel strongly enough about my stupid (and ever-changing) political opinions that I'm willing to hurt people that I consider friends over them. I'm more ill-informed today than ever before over "news" and "current events", because I deliberately avoid them. I'm pretty much on the "news sabbatical" thing that you had mentioned last year sometime. I find pop media and pop culture less and less appealing all the time. Maybe I'm just a lot more crotchety than I care to admit or something. :-)
All,
Sorry for the delay - busy week at work.
Tina,
And by taking the money, as everyone will, it actually creates the demand for the stolen goods, even while decrying them. I think we're in agreement (gasp!) on this one. :o)
Aaron,
I am reminded of the scene in "The Sunshine Soldiers" - "What if I want to pet one of my missiles?"
CH,
See my latest post for my thoughts on whether Repuglicans represent "small gov't conservatives". And I've heard the excuse that "Well, everyone else is going to take it, and it's coming out of MY taxes, too, so I better take my share or else someone else will." And while I understand that line of reasoning to a point, my point is simple - until some of us stop creating a demand for stolen goods in the first place, there will still be stolen goods. Or again, read my latest post.
Meghann,
Well, not quite - while you are paying it back, it is basically an interest-free loan, which means you are still costing the gov't by using the deduction and paying it back in cheaper future dollars after inflation (as your dad, I say, "Use it!", but from a philosophical point of view you are still costing the gov't, and therefore the rest of us, something by taking it - that's why there's a cost allocated to it in the first place).
Erin,
I agree.
CH,
One thing I like about this administration is that they are at least bringing things "on budget" that used to be "off budget". I see that as a Good Thing. At least we know the real (and really bad) numbers we're arguing about.
CH,
No worries, mate!
Post a Comment