Readers of this forum will know that I am dismissive of most of the obsessions of libertarians, from their belief that screening communications to catch terrorists somehow steals our liberty to their never-ending blather about holding down the "size of government" — which is their bizarre (what’s the "right size" for government? no one could possibly say), ideological way of getting around saying that they just really, really don’t like paying taxes.
That’s one thing; this is another altogether. It strikes me as strange and funky and wrong to actually go out
and encourage the government to spend money, particularly to spend it on and with you, the one asking for it. And yet that’s what a July 9 symposium announced by Jim
Clyburn plans to do. I quote from the press release (which I was unable to find in text form, so I reproduce as a jpg):
The focus of the Expo is to provide a one-stop shop for small businesses, large prime contractors and federal agencies to meet and establish partnerships in pursuing the remaining federal contract dollars available for 2007.
Yes, I know what the congressman would say in defense of this approach. He would say that:
- This is not encouraging federal spending that would not occur otherwise. This is money that has already been appropriated.
- As long as it’s being spent, why not get more of it going to small businesses, particularly the minority-owned small businesses that might not benefit from the personal connections with officials that might come with a middle-class upbringing?
And I get all that, and it makes sense, but it is … unseemly … to call folks to the trough and instruct them in ways to elbow their ways to the front of the litter. And it seems hard to refute that members of Congress would hardly push hard for this spending in the first place if they didn’t hope — or even have the pull to ensure — that it would go to the pockets of their constituents. Another thing about contracting with the government — every dime that the private contractor makes in profit is another dime that taxpayer is paying that doesn’t go directly to the thing he is ostensibly paying for. (This is one reason I lament the passing of the draft; when soldiers picked up cigarette butts on the post, no one had to pay a for-profit contractor to do it).
Think about who will be in the room at this event — no participant has any motivate for containing federal spending overall. It’s in the interests — some legitimate, some not — of the politician, the agency official and the contractors that there be plenty of money for contracts and programs in next year’s budget as well. That means you’ve just put together a significant constituency for increased spending, independent of the needs of the nation as a whole.
I also understand that my objections on this point arise from a fastidiousness that is distinctly middle class, and that Mr. Clyburn is concerned with helping people who have never enjoyed membership join that class.
But I will never feel good about any amount of government spending that doesn’t go to something we truly need to spend it on as a nation. And somehow this symposium doesn’t seem at all likely to help us keep our expenditures focused on the necessary; quite the contrary.
Related Posts
But this is exactly the logical conclusion to your rabid big-government ideology. This is no different than that idiotic “you might qualify for food stamps” ad that’s been running on radio recently. It’s already bad enough that our money is confiscated by the government but then they even have to rustle up “customers” for their “service” who on their own couldn’t or wouldn’t get off their duffs to even apply.
Try, try really hard, to understand this: I don’t have a “big-government philosophy” of any kind, rabid or otherwise. The fact that you and others like you think that anyone who doesn’t agree with your agenda of aggressively and arbitrarily shrinking government must have such a philosophy is one of the biggest obstacles to communication on this blog.
My view, as stated above, is this: Speaking of the “size of government,” rather than this program or this agency or that one, or this expenditure or that one, is the most absurd kind of nonsense. It simply cannot be spoken of in a way that makes sense. To speak of spending in the aggregate — as though all of it were of equal value, when it clearly is not — and to talk about reducing or increasing the TOTAL to fit some preconceived figure, is madness.
Government should do what it should do, and no more or less. It should spend what it costs to do it, no more and no less. And each action, and each expenditure, should be discussed and vetted rigorously through the process of representative democracy.
I have no patience with people who go into that process — or want to bypass that process — with a presumption that “government” should be THIS big or THAT small. It’s foolish in the extreme, and I just don’t see how anyone can fail to see that.
Brad,
Try, try really hard, to understand this: your big-government ideology comes through loud and clear in almost every post. Whether you think you have this ideology or not is irrelevant – the undeniable fact is that you do. You know you have a problem here when Bud and I are agreed on this!
My view on the proper size of government is this: it should be at the absolute minimum required to properly discharge its constitutionally assigned functions. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, there’s a huge difference between “constitutionally assigned functions” and your ridiculous “government should do what it should do” which I suspect means the sky’s the limit.
The true madness is on your big-government side because it’s self-evident that government can’t continue to grow at a higher rate than the citizens’ income growth (plus the growth added by new residents, i.e. P+I). That way lies bankruptcy.
Why are you so deadset against limits to government spending? You, I, all of us have a limit on what we can spend: our income. We simply can’t spend more than that in the long run. Sure, we can borrow money but that also has to be repaid out of our income so it only shifts the timing of when we spend our income. Now figure out the income growth of all SC residents and that growth rate should easily be enough for state government as well. The only way the state can spend more than that is to take even more from us than it’s taking already.
We all have to make choices on how we spend our income. It’s high time that government is forced to live within its means as well. Even you agree that there are many programs that are less important than others. (Dare we even say that are are many programs which are utterly useless and are a total waste of money?) So if we want more of Program X then by all means go ahead but let’s get the money for X by cutting Y and Z. Families have to make these tough choices all the time so why can’t we get our little legislative piggies to do the same?
Have to agree with Lex on this Brad… you can try and spin it any way you like but your general attitude is that government is the solution to all problems. The only way you can achieve that objective is to take more and more money out of MY pocket to give to someone else.
The government is the LEAST efficient mechanism to achieve an objective because there are no consequences for faiure and the government has the authority to raise taxes to whatever level it deems appropriate. We actually have an entire multi billion dollar industry comprised of lawyers and accountants whose sole purpose is to limit the amount of taxes people and busineses pay to the government. These people do NOTHING of value. They don’t create anything, they don’t advance society in anyway… they simply keep their clients from paying what they owe so that the burden can be shifted to those of us in the middle class.
It’s easy for you to chastise Liberarians because your tax burden obviously is not at the level yet where you feel like you are getting little value for your money. And since its not your money that the government spends, you’re all for taking more of mine.
I hope I never reach the point where I feel the government owes me something I didn’t earn. We’ve got a culture based on moochers and looters… it depends on people like me to work hard so my money can be taken to pay for other people’s healthcare, childcare, retirement, food, etc. Someday the gravy train will end.
Why should I pay more taxes than you (I GUARANTEE that I do)? Try and give me a logical rationale for why that should be the case. Why should I pay more in property taxes than the guy down the street just because my house has an extra bedroom?
The tax system is ludicrous.
There is nothing that stops you from sending a larger check to the government than you do already. Why don’t you start the trend? Oh yeah, just like Iraq, you depend on others to further your agenda.
Heck of a day you’re having, Brad. “Working Class Hero” and “Come and Get It” on the blog in headlines. Lennon and McCartney, no less. Could be what’s left of the Beatles appeared on Larry King tonight.
Actually, I think it’s a nice touch. Different days have different flavors. Today was “Here comes the sun king” for me.
But to the point: “Government should do what it should do.” So saith you.
But what is that? Spoon feed us all from cradle to grave? Provide for the common defense and nothing but? Pave every road how often? Build how many museums to how many crops and prop them up with state dollars because nobody cares what boll weevils looked like before the Civil War? Build an unnecessary bridge in every swamp and connect them all with four-lane roads that lead to Myrtle Beach and last forever because nobody uses them? Strew pea-size rocks all over my yard in the name of chip-sealing a farm-to-market road for no reason whatsoever apart from spending budgeted money so as to encourage more such money be budgeted the next year, and the next year, and the year after that?
Sorry, Brad, but not limiting the size of government is ever so much more “madness” than deciding how big it should be. Government grows until it festers somewhere (DOT, for example) and taxpayers lop off the offending government arm in disgust.
And, yes, you could make the argument that since government is an ongoing process, it grows and shrinks as a result of its own momentum.
But the sales tax that was three cents on the dollar when I was a child is now six or seven or eight cents on the dollar hither, thither and yon, and The State wants a bigger tax on cigarettes to curtail their use by people who ought to be too young to buy them, and the cost of government viewed as a percentage of personal income just keeps going up.
Does it have to be that way?
Sure. For exactly as long as “government should do what it should do.”
And yet you started this by writing that Clyburn’s “Contacts into Contracts” meeting might be a bridge too far.
Oh, the irony.
Pardon me. I think the taxman is at the door.
I think Brad’s seeming contradiction belies the whole nature of this silly argument. Big and small are both just arbitrary terms. No matter how ‘big’ (whatever that means) government gets, there will always be someone who wants it smaller. And vice versa.
Doug, Brads’ reason that you should pay more taxes than he is simple. He not only believes that government has an innate and implicit right to take whatever it pleases from you…he believes that it should take whatever it takes from you in a way that modifies and shapes your behaviour as it (he) sees fit.
Brads’ first point (that government can take what it pleases) plays out very clearly in his support for nearly every new tax that is ever considered, no matter how horrible. Take for example the 2% prepared food taxed. Even thought it stunk to high heaven…even though governments that implemented it did so acknowledging that there was no real reason for it…even though Brad lamented that there was no way to ensure it would be used and accounted for properly…even after all this, he and the other girls down at the mullet wrapper couldn’t force themselves to come out clearly against it in their paper. Brads’ belief that government can take what it wants also means that he is consistently and staunchly against personal property rights.
If you don’t believe that Brad holds that government can and should use taxation to shape public behaviour, look no further than his monomaniacal support for increaed tobacco taxes. He’s probably on the winning side in this arguement, because unfortunately I think most South Carolinians have drunk the koolaid with him and jumped on tobacco taxes band wagon. Problem is, they’ve done so without considering that people like Brad won’t quit with tobacco taxes. His aim is to have government use taxation as a blunt instrument to shape their behaviour as he’d have it.
Watch out Doug, shallow thinkers agree with Brad and you and I are in peril. Ed
By the way, another thing just occurred to me. A couple of weeks back when we got into a discussion of wind-up cars or battery powered cars or whatever silliness the eco-wingnuts were spouting, Brad let us know up front that he favored increased gasoline taxes to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Oh yes…he said this very clearly.
No acknowledgement that our population is increasing and demand is rising. No acknowledgement that we have huge untapped domestic
petroleum resources that we could extract responsibly and cleanly, and that these resources would do exactly what he purports to want. No acknowledgement that the increased cost of gas at the pump lately has utterly failed to curtail demand, and it is almost certain that taxes wouldn’t either. No acknowledgement of the drag increased fuel taxes would have on every other sector of the economy. Nope…no reality. No common sense. Not from Brad. Just the let’s raise taxes mantra. Ed
Just the let’s raise taxes to change public behaviour mantra. ED
Try, try really hard, to understand this: I don’t have a “big-government philosophy” of any kind, rabid or otherwise.
-Brad
No one who reads this blog on a regular basis believes that. Defend your HUGE government philosophy as much as you want but don’t deny it.
ed and lex have their big-government bellweather items they believe could be limited: public education, tobacco, gas taxes etc. RTH, Hal (Mary) and I have different areas where we would like to reduce government involvement: the Iraq war, military hardware, the Hunley museum, video poker, government eavesdropping programs, Guantanemo Bay. The participants of this blog disagree often but at least we can point to some areas of government spending and intrusion that we would cut. Frankly I’ve failed to see anything that Brad would cut out. All intrusion, all spending all the time.
Brad, the only thing I’m really critical of here is that you deny your own philosophy. Embrace it man. We’ll all respect you more.
Brad,
When are you going to write an editorial demanding that newspapers be removed from the list of items exempt from sales taxes? According to The State’s website, your newspaper sells about 100,000 copies every day and 140,000 every Sunday. That’s about $600,000 of revenue The State makes every week without paying sales taxes. Works out to over $2 million a year in lost tax revenue to the state of South Carolina (and that’s just for your paper alone).
I know that’s a good thing for The McClatchey Company, but what about the people of South Carolina?
That $2 million could pay for 25 school teachers, feed thousands of hungry kids, repair many miles of roads, etc. I hope you don’t feel too guilty about not being good corporate citizens. No worries though, the rest of us will cover it for you. You just sit back and do what you do and we’ll handle it.
BTW, Brad, your tribute to Bush’s Poodle today was stomach churning. Comparing Blair to Winston Churchill almost made me gag.
You and Blair of two of kind, though. When Blair was alerted that the Bushies were cooking the intel books to produce a fraudlent pretext for invading Iraq, he apparently wasn’t fazed in the slightest.
Hard to believe that Blair is even converting to Catholicism like yourself. Life is stranger than fiction.
Thanks for the shout out about “ill-tempered” blog posters that just parrot the partisan line, though. There’s nothing quite like being criticized from your soapbox while you send more Americans to die in a pointless, fraudlent debacle.
I guess that you’re doing it good-humoredly, though.
Did I hear you say that there must be a catch,
will you walk away from a fool and his money?
Badfinger
The latest polling results from Rasmussen have me scratching my head:
As you would expect, there is a huge partisan gap on rating the President. Still, just 52% of Republicans are willing to give their party leader good or excellent ratings when it comes to Iraq. Only 8% of Democrats offer such a positive assessment while 76% of Democrats say the President is doing a poor job.
-Rasmussen
Specifically, Democrats that are polled are nearly unanimous in oppossing the president on the war. Yet when it came down to crunch time many Democrats in congress voted to provide him with a blank check to continue funding the damn thing for a few more months. What gives? Are the Democrats just plain crazy? Why would you vote to alienate your base in such an egregious manner? It simply makes no sense. Right now I’m probably more angry with the Dems that ed or Lex.
bud,Badfinger had the hit,but Paul McCartney wrote the song,and did a demo version(playing all instruments)that you can find on The Beatles’ Anthology 3 album.It’s superior.
The song was featured in the movie,”The Magic Christian”(starring Ringo and Peter Sellers).
The movie is about greed.
Thank you, Bill, for explaining what a Beatle freak like me would think anyone would know.
Bud, I think the answer to your question is pretty simple really. No matter what hair-brained, half-baked, unworkable liberal positions you hear congressional democrats say they support at any given moment; no matter how much they excoriate the presidents’ war policy or how much widespread public support for their nutty positions they may claim; no matter what the contorted, distorted and biased polls you read may claim…one of the simplest reasons that congressional democrats don’t vote against funding the war is that they know a dirty little secret: The american public, by and large, doesn’t agree with them, and you can bet these democrat senators and congressmen are are totally aware of what the public really thinks. They’d de-fund in a second if they thought the people in this country would stand for it. I don’t care WHAT polls that are published for public consumption (and to attempt to sway public opinion as much as anything else) say, the REAL polls…the ACCURATE polls that are done for democrats personal/private consumption (and upon which they make decisions) and that we never see must indicate very clearly that they’d better not mess around and fail to fund troops in harms way. These two-faced democrats know what the american public will do if they try it, and they don’t dare. It’s that simple, or at least a big part of it is. The posturing and the bloviating is done by Senator Reid and Senator Kennedy and Dung-heap Tom Harkin all for the consumption of their whacked out liberal base, but when it’s nut-cuttin time, they fund the war. Period. And they had better keep doing it too. Ed
C’mon Brad.. why is The State stealing money from the government? Why shouldn’t The State collect sales tax on the sale of newspapers? Yes or no – newspapers should be exempt from sales taxes. Let’s see if you can shoehorn that exemption into your “tax everybody else” philosophy.
Ed, where’d you get this information? The same place you got your information about Abramoff? On the short bus to school?
I made it up, Hal. The same way you make up things you want people to beafraid of about the evil and sinster Doctor Mengele Wingate. Nitwit. Ed
Hey Hal, why don’t you at least try to be original and get your own epithets? I first used the little bus thing when describing YOUR intellectual vacancy. You and the rest of the propellor hat and paddle ball crowd ought to at least be able to come up with your own invective. Heck, you were pretty original when when you made up out of thin air all of the foolishness you think we’re supposed to believe about Wingate. So…get your own. I’m not sayin, I’m just sayin. Ed
ed, I actually thought about the things you said in response to my puzzlement over the Rasmussen poll. You’re suggesting that the Dems are privy to some secret polling that indicates Americans really want to continue in Iraq. That would explain their vote to continue funding. But it doesn’t explain the 2006 election. No matter how much you twist that election to suit your conservative vision of the world the indisputable fact remains that Iraq was the biggest issue in that election and the voters chose the party that offered an alternative to the president’s approach.
Let’s try again. What could explain the polling numbers, the 2006 election results, and the Dems support for the president in Iraq. This is the biggest mystery of the 21st century.
“the voters chose the party that offered an alternative to the president’s approach.”
And they’ve had a severe case of buyer’s remorse ever since, giving the Dem congress a 14% approval rating, the lowest ever recorded and far below even Bush’s low ratings. How would you explain that, Bud?
Lex, that’s real simple. They voted to continue funding the Iraq war. That’s why I don’t approve of congress.
Brad,
I think your critics are missing the point.
Congratulations on drawing attention to a very questionable use of federal tax dollars. Handing out what’s left of the 2007 budget to businesses is not sound economics or sound governance. It’s corporate welfare. You’re right. It’s unseemly. My only objection is you were too polite.
Ben, speaking only for myself I get Brad’s initial point and even agree with it. It’s pretty straightforward and really doesn’t require much follow-up discussion.
What caught everyone’s attention (and changed the subject) was Brad’s insistance that he does not have a “big-government philosophy”. Every single regular to this blog, from both the left and right, found that claim not to be credible. What we would like to see is Brad just admit that he favors a large, intrusive government then defend that philosophy.
bud, that’s just one of Brad’s blind spots big enough to drive the Chevron Condoleezza Rice oil tanker through.
It’s too bad The State doesn’t have to collect sales tax on the newspapers it sells. Otherwise, those funds might be available to use for items like these:
• $112,173 for a security detail/driver for Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer
• $257,317 for security for the Hunley, a Confederate submarine
which our legislators deemed an appropriate use of taxpayer money by overriding Governor Sanford’s veto.
But that’s okay.. it’s not their money. It’s SO much easier to spend other people’s money.