Sometimes, I'm looking for a subject for a new post and it just falls into my lap.
In this morning's "The Times Union", an editorial was titled: "Inefficient stimulus leaves a big debt". The sub-heading: "The $757 billion stimulus package put in place by the Obama administration in 2009 was not an efficient way to create jobs".
They should have stopped there. The opening sentence of the editorial opines: "However, it has spurred the economy in Northeast Florida and across the nation." It goes on to cite how much money has been "showered" on the area and the benefits to numerous small businesses which it lists.
I continue to be amazed at the mind set of those who first look to government for solutions. Conservatives know that we can't spend our way out of a recession, that free enterprise is the best engine to grow the economy, that government interference too often results in diminished liberty and to continue funding expenditures by increasing our debt (a burden for future generations) is unconscionable.
We must change our attitude toward big government. We have looked to our elected representatives "to bring home the bacon". But government largess comes at a price: more government controls, more debt and a loss of personal freedom. Included in this process are earmarks that are used to insure a congressman's vote on legislation. As for instance, for Obamacare, which I would call adding insult to injury.
But not often discussed about big government is its inefficiency as the cited editorial suggests. This condition not only applies to programs that the government has assumed for itself (health care, business subsidies and education for instance) but also to areas where we rely on the federal government to be competent (such as border control, defense and protection of our individual liberties).
In this morning's "The Times Union", an editorial was titled: "Inefficient stimulus leaves a big debt". The sub-heading: "The $757 billion stimulus package put in place by the Obama administration in 2009 was not an efficient way to create jobs".
They should have stopped there. The opening sentence of the editorial opines: "However, it has spurred the economy in Northeast Florida and across the nation." It goes on to cite how much money has been "showered" on the area and the benefits to numerous small businesses which it lists.
I continue to be amazed at the mind set of those who first look to government for solutions. Conservatives know that we can't spend our way out of a recession, that free enterprise is the best engine to grow the economy, that government interference too often results in diminished liberty and to continue funding expenditures by increasing our debt (a burden for future generations) is unconscionable.
We must change our attitude toward big government. We have looked to our elected representatives "to bring home the bacon". But government largess comes at a price: more government controls, more debt and a loss of personal freedom. Included in this process are earmarks that are used to insure a congressman's vote on legislation. As for instance, for Obamacare, which I would call adding insult to injury.
But not often discussed about big government is its inefficiency as the cited editorial suggests. This condition not only applies to programs that the government has assumed for itself (health care, business subsidies and education for instance) but also to areas where we rely on the federal government to be competent (such as border control, defense and protection of our individual liberties).
No comments:
Post a Comment