Spend now, SUFFER later.

BY FRANK WRIGHT

In Paul Krugman's piece "Now and Later" (Spend Now, Save Later), in the NY Times, he points to the current consensus that spending is out of control and implies that people need to be smarter: We need to understand that slowing spending now is "shortchanging" the economy. We need to spend even more... and when the economy improves, we'll let the chips fall where they may and pick up the pieces at that time. In short, spend as much and as quickly as we can to ease our current suffering - and not look at any long-term damage that bankrupting the country could cause. It's like telling us to run through the forest as fast as we can while staring at our shoes. Never mind the trees, we're told, they will take care of themselves. Ouch.

Are we all on the same planet?

The problem is NOT that nobody understands this administration. We've heard that old song too many times already. We didn't understand ObamaCare, that's why we were opposed. We still don't understand what awesome benefits ObamaCare will provide - and that's why we remain opposed. We don't understand the great blessings in store for us from taxing our energy use through cap-and-tax - so we're opposed. We don't understand how shifting to alternative green power (even if it's not currently sufficient or available) will bring utopia, so we're opposed. Basically, if we're opposed to some left-wing pipe-dream scheme, it's WE who are just too stupid to understand it. I respectfully disagree. The problem is that we DO understand, not that we are uneducated!  

Now, it's time for the liberals to LISTEN. Government spending creates more, if not at least as many, problems than it solves. We spend a trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000) to "stimulate" the economy. This is essentially doing two things:

1) Hiring a lot of people to do temporary work. They'll be laid off again when the work projects are finished.

2) Starting new government agencies and programs. These will be burdens on the taxpayer for decades to come as an act of congress could be required to close them down - and we all know that congress doesn't close anything that has a compassionate name on the front of the building.

So, we have this great situation the liberals are presenting us with: Spend now on a bunch of things that are temporary relief for a small group of union workers (good friends and political supporters) and then spend more on a bunch of things that will be an increase to the burden for decades to come, but can be initially built by union workers (good friends and political supporters). Excuse me, but I don't see these as the answers we need as even the union workers (good friends and political supporters) will eventually be hurt as well. Oh, let's not forget that a modest Value Added Tax (VAT) of a mere 5% would be a great thing for the country as it would tax the poor as well as the rich (who didn't see that coming?) and, as a side-bonus which some uneducated simpleton who doesn't understand will point out, it will only add about 30% to the cost of goods for the American consumer. That won't have any negative impact on the economy - will it? (Check your wallet, then answer quietly in the voting booth) We have now arrived at the same thing the liberals have been telling us for 50 years: We're only one more massive new tax increase away from paradise! The ever more elusive and ever more pricey paradise, it seems.

We're told that the United States is one of the lowest-taxed countries in the "advanced world". Are they referring to Europe? The teetering on bankruptcy Euro-Socialist countries? The high-taxed, yet much more financially enlightened (figuratively and literally) people of the bankrupt countries in Europe? Excuse me again... I'm trying to figure out why we need to follow a path of proven failure when we already know the path to success - oh, wait! I get it: liberals cannot divorce themselves from their ideological agenda of massive government - even if it is a proven mistake! Case in point: California. One of the highest taxed states in the union, yet unable to pay the bills. Anyone that's logical can very logically conclude that high taxes ARE NOT the solution to out-of-control spending. Controlling spending is the solution to out-of-control spending. When government cannot discipline itself (painfully obvious), the solution is not to hand over more money. More money means more spending and more spending means more debt. To illustrate: If I make $40,000 per year and I spend $50,000 per year - I have a debt problem due to spending too much. Increasing my pay to $60,000 per year when I have a habit of overspending, inspires me to spend $75,000 per year. For years, this is proven to be the habit of liberal governments. 

LIBERAL METHOD FOR FIXING THE ECONOMY

Step one: Spend based on "hoped for" tax revenues. 

Step two: Scratch our heads and wonder why the tax revenues were not as large as imagined and the debt went up. 

Step three: Introduce more taxes to fix the problem. 

Step four: Go back to step one.

Liberals site one of the problems that we face now as high medical costs (note that a liberal will never site run-away government spending, high taxes, or huge debt). Let's look at this for a moment. What is it that drives up medical costs?

1) Malpractice insurance costs (liberals can't touch TORT REFORM because they need the trial lawyer money from the lawsuits to fund their campaigns for lower medical costs - odd conflict there, yes?)

2) Medicaid means free insurance (free for people who are poor - very expensive for everyone else. Going to the doctor is free and that's less than buying cough syrup. Liberals can't bring themselves to limit access for the poor because they need the votes that they used the trial lawyer's money to campaign for.)

3) Medical technology is not free or cheap. NOW, we have something liberals can attack. Those mean old drug companies! Let's cap prescription costs and doctor salaries! I know he saves lives, but did you see the nice car? He must be rich! So, they go after the researchers and the providers as the ONLY HOPE of reducing costs - not imagining that they will be cutting access and quality dramatically. Wow.

When the government runs out of our money, the solution will be forced upon us, just like it has been forced upon the well-paid and well-benefited citizens of Greece and more "advanced" countries to come. Dramatic cuts in government spending on all levels. You'll have to pick your favorite government trough, pull your snout out, and kiss it goodbye. 

Our country was not founded on liberal principles of equal result. It was founded on conservative principles of equal opportunity. Our fathers believed that the government should empower - not provide. The government should insure that opportunity is equally available - not hand out other people's money. There is no such thing as a government social program that increased revenue and increased employment in the private sector because that is not the nature, design, or scope of government.

I, for one, would  rather SAVE NOW and have some control over where the chips fall than spend now and let the chips fall where they may. Suffering the forced-upon consequences of bankruptcy later is not a good plan - even for now. If we must stop spending (and we must), we would be much wiser to do it on our terms rather than those terms forced on us by insolvency.