Friday, November 09, 2007
Our next leader of the public sector
A quick look down the blog before I wrote this looking for knowledge and inspiration, and I see several articles on government's role in public sector programs, and more particularly, Hillary Clinton's plans for health care and taxes. And while I cannot predict the future, a democratic shift in the oval office seems likely. And then I see this quote from her and it concerns me.
"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
This statement is disturbing coming from a potential presidential candidate on so many levels. It stinks of liberal democratic propaganda, making it seem that only the rich benefit from tax cuts, but that is far from the worst insinuation. She thinks as a politician, the revenues collected by a coercive representative democracy, are hers to do with what she will. Her colleagues constantly circumventing the constitution by implementing programs such as social security that are so blatantly economically inefficient and that could be handled easily in the private sector. Instead of continuing to cut taxes and similar programs, she believes that she should take this money away from the citizen on behalf of the common good.
Instead of acting only in cases where market failures could possibly be corrected by government in cases of; externalities, monopolies, or demand for public goods, government is actually creating the problem in the case of FICA with holdings. She uses terms such as common good to make it seem that this spending is justifiable, but it isn't on either a constitutional or economic basis.
The solution to this problem lies within. Freeriding on the civic expertise of those that came before us and created the constituion can continue for only so long. A good citizen, who will be a good consumer, demanding sound economic policy from our government is the solution. And when all else fails, we can consult our instruction manual, the United States Constituion.
"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
This statement is disturbing coming from a potential presidential candidate on so many levels. It stinks of liberal democratic propaganda, making it seem that only the rich benefit from tax cuts, but that is far from the worst insinuation. She thinks as a politician, the revenues collected by a coercive representative democracy, are hers to do with what she will. Her colleagues constantly circumventing the constitution by implementing programs such as social security that are so blatantly economically inefficient and that could be handled easily in the private sector. Instead of continuing to cut taxes and similar programs, she believes that she should take this money away from the citizen on behalf of the common good.
Instead of acting only in cases where market failures could possibly be corrected by government in cases of; externalities, monopolies, or demand for public goods, government is actually creating the problem in the case of FICA with holdings. She uses terms such as common good to make it seem that this spending is justifiable, but it isn't on either a constitutional or economic basis.
The solution to this problem lies within. Freeriding on the civic expertise of those that came before us and created the constituion can continue for only so long. A good citizen, who will be a good consumer, demanding sound economic policy from our government is the solution. And when all else fails, we can consult our instruction manual, the United States Constituion.
