When a budget debate is underway, and some politicians try to cut taxes so that you and I can keep more of our money, the refrain from some in the media as well as certain politicians (who tend to be liberal — they liberally take our money in the form of taxes and liberally spend our money in the form of pork programs) is, “How are we going to pay for these tax cuts??” That’s the wrong question.

Nobody “pays” for tax cuts — it’s actually an absurdity.

If you spend everything you earn, and then lose some of your income, nobody would ask you, “How are you going to pay for your pay cut?” because it is recognized as not making any sense. Rather, someone might ask how you are going to pay your expenses due to your pay cut. It might seem like a minor quibble, but it really isn’t. Words are powerful! In skipping the step, and saying “pay for tax cuts,” it gives a powerful force to those who want to keep taking more of your money.

When you and I are faced with a reduction in income, what do we do? We economize. We reduce our expenses to match our income. Luxuries and non-necessary items are the first to go. You and I have to do this sometimes — why should our government (which is supposedly “we the people”) be so different? Why should the government continue to pay for luxuries and non-necessary items when revenue goes down, while you and I have to tighten our belts in order to make it?

In asking, “How are we going to pay for tax cuts?” it makes it sound as if the expenses are fixed and unalterable! How ridiculous! In any budget, there are only two sides to the equation: income and expenses. If my income goes down and I can’t get it back up, I have to cut my expenses. If the government’s income actually goes down due to cuts in tax rates (which is arguable), why do they act as if they cannot reduce their expenses? That’s just arrogance, pure and simple. It also smacks of immaturity — like the guy who is living on the edge (or even over the edge), but won’t give up his meals out or his unlimited cell phone usage or cable TV even if he can’t meet his bills. Or someone who buys a brand-new car that he can’t afford just because he likes it. Reminds me of a toddler — “But I want it!”

It’s time for some grown-ups to stand up and put the arrogant teenagers and toddlers that are currently in charge of our government back in their places, so that those who are mature (not necessarily old; just mature — able to say “no” and mean it) can run the government and get us back on the right path.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl


Dear Senator or Representative,

I have just finished reviewing the “toxic asset” rescue plan. I know that I am suppose to call them “legacy assets” but you will have to excuse me for calling things as I see them. I am just a constituent and not an economist but after reading articles from various sources that both support and oppose the idea. Here are my observations:

1. These Private Investors who are to partner with the Federal Government will invest in these toxic assets with little risk. These investors will have their risk subsidized by using my money (taxpayer money).
2. No one knows who these Private Investors will be but almost everyone agrees that they are going to be given a sweetheart deal.
3. Senator Lindsay Graham, appearing on Greta FOX NEWS, laughed at the notion that everyday people like me would have the opportunity to take part in this sweetheart deal
4. The administration only has 100 billion (only seems to be a funny term when talking about 100 billion dollars) to devote to the project. I am assuming they will need to come back to you for approval for more bailout money if this program is a success.
5. This plan continues to weave the Federal Government into the Private Sectors web.

I want you to understand what I am saying to you loud and clearly. I want you to oppose any further spending and any further involvement in the private sector. I want you to instead of working on new ways to spend my money along with my not yet born grandchildren’s money rather work on balancing the Federal Budget. This will NOT happen by reforming Health Care, developing green energy, or making it easier for young people to get college loans. Rather, you all will have to tighten your belts and cut spending.

Furthermore, I find it sickening that Tim Geitner and the administration are going to partner with the private sector without any congressional oversight. I find this plan to be in contradiction of a free market economy. I find it REPULSIVE that the taxpayer is taking on most or even ALL of the risk in this plan and that my elected officials are not outraged. I know you are powerless over the 100 billion dollars of my money (ok it isn’t all mine but I figured I would personalize it) that is being devoted to this anti free market program.

I refuse to believe all of what I am hearing out of Washington and in the media that the American people and even America itself would or even could crumble because of a company like AIG failing. I realize that this program affects many institutions but the free market demands that these institutions that made bad loans should be held accountable. Could it be that the federal government (that is you) feels guilty about the fact that many of these toxic assets were created by this idea that every American should be able to own a home? Either way the lesson should be learned that government involvement in the private sector makes things worse not better. Please, for the love of the Constitution and the American people, stop spending our money like drunken sailors on failed institutions and on people who do not contribute to the nation.




Bookmark and Share