Monday, September 12, 2005
Government needs to do more about disaster relief - NOT
Quoting from a long email I received at DownsizeDC.org over the weekend:
It seems as if you are trying to say that leaving everything to the free market would have prevented the Katrina disaster or mitigated it. That is the opposite of the truth. The problem was that the government on the one hand didn't do its job to fix the levees, and on the other didn't evacuate the people in time.
The free market doesn't fix everything. I think this mess is partly caused by GWB pretending that all we need is the free market... Mr. Bush is gutting the United States, leaving us and leading us into third world status.
I responded:
At no time in this crisis or any other his administration has faced, did George W. Bush pretend that the free market can do anything as well as government good. He's spending like Lyndon Johnson -- a guns and butter policy. He's pandering like Bill Clinton.
It's important to understand... This is not a party thing! Both of the parties would handle this situation in much the same way. Government first. Government second. Government for everything until the last.
That means they're going to a) tax you b) inflate your currency c) borrow more from the big bankers (who enjoy getting rich knowing the good faith and credit of the American people will always pay their bills on time).
George W. Bush has been rushing to spend money. He'll spend "whatever it takes." Why not? It's not his money.
Here's how the money is spent.
1) You send $100 to Washington. $30 - $35 comes back...
2) ...with strings (instructions on how exactly the money must be spent) Strings reduce the value of those funds.
3) And when the federal government gets involved, you won't be making the decisions on how that money is spent, nor will I. Experts won't even make that decision. It will be made politically. So some portion will need to go to pay-off state and local political patrons and government unions (further reducing the value of those funds).
4) And it's well-known that it costs government more to get something accomplished than it does for private businesses or churches and charities. $90 hammers and $150 toilet seats aren't even funny anymore because everyone expects government to waste money that way.
So, are you suggesting that the private sector couldn't match big government's $30 -- particularly if we Downsized DC and allowed you and your fellow Americans to keep the money ya'll have earned, to save, to spend, to invest, to give away as you see fit, not as the politicians determine? Do you really think they'll exercise the same care and discretion that you and every other individual would?
George W. Bush has now given us four major boondoggles -- financial sinkholes -- that we weren't strapped with before he was elected: Iraq, Homeland Insecurity, a prescription drug program for seniors (major pharma thanks him), and now rescuing New Orleans (see my September 8 post and listen to my September 4 radio show to see how what blame the Bush regime deserves). And long after he's gone, cooling his heels with Laura back in Texas, we'll still be paying for his great ideas.
Quoting from a long email I received at DownsizeDC.org over the weekend:
It seems as if you are trying to say that leaving everything to the free market would have prevented the Katrina disaster or mitigated it. That is the opposite of the truth. The problem was that the government on the one hand didn't do its job to fix the levees, and on the other didn't evacuate the people in time.
The free market doesn't fix everything. I think this mess is partly caused by GWB pretending that all we need is the free market... Mr. Bush is gutting the United States, leaving us and leading us into third world status.
I responded:
At no time in this crisis or any other his administration has faced, did George W. Bush pretend that the free market can do anything as well as government good. He's spending like Lyndon Johnson -- a guns and butter policy. He's pandering like Bill Clinton.
It's important to understand... This is not a party thing! Both of the parties would handle this situation in much the same way. Government first. Government second. Government for everything until the last.
That means they're going to a) tax you b) inflate your currency c) borrow more from the big bankers (who enjoy getting rich knowing the good faith and credit of the American people will always pay their bills on time).
George W. Bush has been rushing to spend money. He'll spend "whatever it takes." Why not? It's not his money.
Here's how the money is spent.
1) You send $100 to Washington. $30 - $35 comes back...
2) ...with strings (instructions on how exactly the money must be spent) Strings reduce the value of those funds.
3) And when the federal government gets involved, you won't be making the decisions on how that money is spent, nor will I. Experts won't even make that decision. It will be made politically. So some portion will need to go to pay-off state and local political patrons and government unions (further reducing the value of those funds).
4) And it's well-known that it costs government more to get something accomplished than it does for private businesses or churches and charities. $90 hammers and $150 toilet seats aren't even funny anymore because everyone expects government to waste money that way.
So, are you suggesting that the private sector couldn't match big government's $30 -- particularly if we Downsized DC and allowed you and your fellow Americans to keep the money ya'll have earned, to save, to spend, to invest, to give away as you see fit, not as the politicians determine? Do you really think they'll exercise the same care and discretion that you and every other individual would?
George W. Bush has now given us four major boondoggles -- financial sinkholes -- that we weren't strapped with before he was elected: Iraq, Homeland Insecurity, a prescription drug program for seniors (major pharma thanks him), and now rescuing New Orleans (see my September 8 post and listen to my September 4 radio show to see how what blame the Bush regime deserves). And long after he's gone, cooling his heels with Laura back in Texas, we'll still be paying for his great ideas.
Comments:
Post a Comment
