Thought For The Day
*
Irony at its best: 290 people get the Swine Flu and everybody wants to wear a mask. Ten million people irrefutably have AIDS and no one wants to wear a condom.
President Bill Clinton announced in 1996 that the era of Big Government was over. Yet 13 years later, more Americans are at work in the public sector than in manufacturing and construction combined.
In 2008, government payrolls topped 22 million. At the same time, manufacturing and construction payrolls fell to nearly 20 million. In the latest employment report, government was one of only two major sectors of the economy to show job growth. This is not a healthy trend.
As the nearby chart shows, government payrolls have been on the upswing for decades, save for a brief downward blip during Ronald Reagan's first term. This is an indication that too many resources are being directed to the wrong place. For every additional worker employed by a government at some level, there is one fewer worker who can contribute to real economic growth.
Despite claims to the contrary, governments and their employees cannot force economies to grow by growing themselves. They are unable to create wealth. Instead, they seize wealth through taxes, depriving the private sector of the capital needed for growth, and regulate commerce often to the point of obstructing progress.
French economist Frederic Bastiat cleverly explained government's dead-weight impact on the economy when he noted that "the state is a great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else."
Of course, a minimum number of employees is needed perform legitimate government functions. But no government worker builds a house, car or washing machine; designs innovative technologies that make businesses run more efficiently; starts a new company that puts people to work in productive jobs; turns raw materials into fuels that give us power, mobility and warmth; or creates entire industries that both benefit consumers and boost the economy.
Maybe the best way to explain how public-sector jobs drag down the economy is to consider whose welfare is increased when a private-sector job is filled and whose is diminished at the time a government position is filled.
When a private employer offers a job and the offer is accepted, the welfare of both the employer and employee is improved. The employer has a new worker who will make the company more productive and the worker has a job to meet his needs.
But when a government job is filled, a third party is involved, and the welfare of that party — the taxpayers who pay the public employee's salary — is harmed and the economy ultimately damaged.
It's hard to make a reasonable argument that the country needs 22 million public sector employees. With a total population of 304 million, that's one government worker for every 14 Americans.
The country's manufacturing and construction base is able to provide all the goods, homes and buildings we need and make a strong contribution to the economy — in other words, do more than the government — with just one worker for every 15 people.
If government workers and bureaucracy were indeed the engine of the growth, as some in Washington argue, then the Soviet Union would still be intact, East Germany would have a model economy and China would not be moving away from communism.
The best the government can do is take care of its limited duties and leave it to free enterprise to create wealth and add value to the economy. Economic expansion has always been the province of the private sector. It can work no other way.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
There is a road called the Government Road. Let’s take it and see where it goes.
The road begins in a town called Anarchy, a town in which life, liberty, and property are at the mercy of roving bands of marauders. Good, decent, hardworking people left Anarchy as soon as Government Rd. was built.
Eventually the people reached a bright, shining city on a hill. It was the City of Republic, which was founded on laws that protect life, liberty, and property. The laws were codified in a constitution and weren’t supposed to be overruled by majority vote, or, as its citizens liked to say, by the rule of the mob. Because its citizens had civil liberties, economic freedom, and property rights, Republic was prosperous and the envy of the world. A statue of Thomas Jefferson stands in the public square.
Unfortunately, over the years many of Republic’s citizens became dissatisfied with freedom and began to move elsewhere. Known as idealists, they built three government roads out of the city.
The road on the left leads to Utopia, a city populated by idealists who go by the name of left-wingers. They designed Utopia to be a place where there was equality of results, meaning that everyone has about the same income. Accordingly, Utopia does not have economic freedom and property rights. It once had civil liberties, but those were taken away when some independent-minded people reverted back to Republic ways and began to work hard, trade with each other, and seek medical care and other goods and services without the approval of the authorities. Except for the oligarchy that rules the city, everyone is poor in Utopia. Food, clothing, housing, and medical care are rationed by committees of central planners, commonly known as apparatchiks. A statue of Barack Obama stands in the public square.
The road on the right leads to the City of Nationalism. It is a city of flags, pledges of allegiance, national anthems, police in black uniforms and armored personnel carriers, and a large military that threatens other cities and has hundreds of bases around the world. The city is populated by people known as right-wingers. Initially, they believed in economic freedom and property rights but were never too keen about civil liberties. Eventually, economic freedom and property rights were taken away by the ruling oligarchy when it was discovered that sustained free trade depends on civil liberties and non-belligerency towards other cities. Due to being overstretched militarily, the City of Nationalism is as poor as Utopia. A statue of George W. Bush stands in the public square.
The road in the middle twists and turns but ends up in the same place as the roads on the right and left -- namely, in a city ruled by an oligarchy. Known as the City of Progressivism, it is guided by the same principle that guides Utopia and Nationalism: that the individual should be subservient to the government, or collective, or society, or the common good, or whatever euphemism is used to mask the power of the ruling class. Its citizens have been led to believe that a few chosen leaders of intelligence and goodwill can make decisions that improve society. The city is as impoverished as Utopia and Nationalism. A statue of Woodrow Wilson stands in the public square.
What has happened to the City of Republic? Sadly, so many former citizens of the city have taken the three roads out of town and looted the city’s treasury on the way out, that the once shining city on the hill is bankrupt and in rapid decline. A remnant of industrious, frugal, and moral people remains behind, but the Utopians, Nationalists and Progressives did so much pillaging and plundering that the remnant cannot save the city from an ignoble end.
As history has shown, the founders of the city were right: All government roads lead to tyranny, except for the one that leads to a republic.
By Craig J. Cantoni
January 24, 2009
Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist, and one of the remnant. He can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
It's hard to pinpoint the worst part of the public lands legislation bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is calling up for an under-the-radar Sunday vote tomorrow.
The 1200-page, pork-laden, $10 billion proposal locks up millions of acres of energy-rich property by designating it as environmentalist-friendly "federal wilderness" area where not even as much as a bicycle would be permitted to travel across the land. Many of these areas recently became available when the ban on domestic drilling in Western states expired last fall and the liberal left couldn't muster the courage to keep it in place due to rising energy prices. Now Democratic leaders are using different legislative strategies to put a new kind of ban in place.
One Republican House staffer put it this way: "Reid is going to make it federal land so no one can touch it. He's locking up the equivalent of ANWR."
The bill, S.22 "Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009," would cordon off more than 3 million acres from energy leasing by restricting various areas as "federal wilderness" or "wild and scenic" river ways.
Since the price of gasoline has dropped and attention has diverted to other matters, such as President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration, Leader Reid has made the land grab a priority and is calling members of the Senate back to Washington on Sunday to rush it through. And the bill, which is basically an omnibus compilation of pet projects and land seizures sponsored by individual House members and senators, has wide-ranging, bipartisan support since it helps many of them secure support from stakeholders in their home states and districts.
For example, one piece of the bill that has drawn the ire of the Wall Street Journal is a provision sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D.-Mass.). He'd like to make a robust, container shipping port located in his district's Taunton River into a scenic tourist destination. This would have the liberally convenient side effect of killing a proposal to create a terminal to import liquefied natural gas.
Then, as to be expected in an omnibus bill, there's the pork. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.) is requesting $461 million to legally settle a dispute over the San Joaquin River with the environmentalist group Natural Resources Defense Council. The money would be used for a water project that has the "minimum goal" of restoring 500 salmon to the river. (That's nearly $1 million per fish!) Montana Sen. Jon Tester (D.) wants $5 million to fund a "Wolf Compensation and Prevention Program" to assist property owners use "non-lethal" measures to prohibit wolves from killing their livestock.
The lands bill chief opponent Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) argues it's foolish to add acreage to the federal government's responsibility when it can't even properly manage treasured properties like the Statue of Liberty or National Mall appropriately. And, "we're not exactly suffering from a shortage of wilderness," his spokesman John Hart said in a conversation with Townhall.
Coburn has drafted 13 amendments to the bill, but Reid is not allowing him to offer a single one of them. One of them is a common-sense measure to just require that the current maintenance backlogs of government property be brought up to date.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) is urging his fellow Republicans to just skip the vote, as a means of opposing the bill and drawing attention to the fact it's been more than 120 days since Reid allowed a GOP amendment to be accepted on the floor.
Several Republicans, however, have their own projects in the bill making it a difficult vote to skip. Republican Sen. John Barasso of Wyoming, who is typically a reliable conservative vote, has a provision tucked away in the bill to withdraw 1.2 million acres of state land from mineral leasing and energy exploration, where 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 331 million barrels of recoverable oil are estimated to exist.
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
-------- Response by Marty Dillian:
The U.S. Senate passed the bill Sunday by a vote of 66-12.
On this day, 76 years ago, Calvin Coolidge died at the age of 60. Shortly before his life ended and the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt began, Coolidge reportedly told a friend, "I feel I no longer fit in with these times."
If Coolidge felt out of step in the Era of Roosevelt, he would have been a truly lost soul in the coming Age of Obama.
We are entering a time when the American president is simultaneously the sole arbiter of good and bad in the universe, a fashion plate, a paparazzi-attracting celebrity and a pop art icon. His face graces public transit tickets. Schoolchildren numbly chant his campaign slogans. The notion that a simple and shy New Englander such as Coolidge could ever occupy today's White House is absurd.
Though he was simple by our modern presidential standards, there was nothing simplistic about his life or career. For all his reserve and minimalism, Coolidge was an extremely skilled and ambitious politician. From city solicitor to the state house of representatives, to mayor to the state senate to lieutenant governor and then governor and then vice president and president, he ran for office 19 times and lost only one election in his life.
He was a shrewd manipulator of broadcast radio and the photo-op. Versed in Latin and a student of Cicero, Coolidge wrote his own speeches without the assistance or aid of bright young staffers. Those who have read his autobiography (which he penned after his presidency) are aware of his graceful writing and penchant for moving introspection.
His rearing in rural Vermont imparted in the future president the values of thrift (he never owned a car or even a house until after his presidency), a disdain for his era's version of political celebrity. ("We need more of the Office Desk and less of the Show Window in politics. Let men in office substitute the midnight oil for the limelight," he once said.) And strikingly to us in today's era of the superstar chief executive and the revived hyperactive federal government, Coolidge understood that there are some things the government and its chief executive are not capable of doing. He considered the Constitution a limiting document to be adhered to, not adjusted.
Today, the faithful prepare to flock to the nation's capital to participate in what increasingly seems like a coronation. Simultaneously, train trips are being planned and an ancient bible is being brought out, rather immodestly, to remind us of the supposedly uncanny similarities between Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln. Before the president-elect takes the oath of office in front a crowd of millions, it is worth remembering Coolidge's own assumption of the presidency. When news of President Warren G. Harding's death reached Plymouth Notch, Vermont, Vice President Coolidge, out of necessity, was administered the oath of office by his father, at the family homestead, using a family bible by the flickering light of an oil lamp.
Coolidge took that oath and assumed the presidency without promises to heal the soul of the country, change the world, or make loaves and fish magically appear. Instead, when asked for his thoughts on assuming the presidency, Coolidge simply replied, "I think I can swing it."
And despite the opinions of New Deal historians, swing it he did. A year after Harding's death Coolidge was elected president in his own right by a landslide. He spent the next four years fulfilling his duty as he believed the founders had envisioned -- cutting taxes, resisting and vetoing new spending, and generally minding his own business while presiding over a time of great prosperity.
He had no interest in saving or rescuing the American people -- he possessed, what is today, an uncommon faith they could take care of that themselves.
Coolidge could have easily won a second full term in 1928 -- a feat that, at the time, would have eventually made him the longest serving president in U.S. history. Instead, he willingly let go of the reins of power. Far from a messiah or a savior, he returned from whence he had come: "We draw our Presidents from the people. It is a wholesome thing for them to return to the people. I came from them. I wish to be one of them again," he reasoned.
Today Coolidge lies buried in a tiny Vermont village just a short distance from the house where he was born and raised. A humble headstone marks his final resting place; the word "president" is nowhere to be found on the simple marker. On the occasion of Coolidge's death, H.L. Mencken said, "Should the day ever dawn, when Jefferson's warnings are heeded at last, and we reduce government to its simplest terms, it may very well happen that Calvin's bones now resting inconspicuously in the Vermont granite will come to be revered as those of a man who really did the nation some service." Given the results of our recent election, the arrival of that day seems unlikely.
Indeed, Coolidge's qualities -- thrift, recognition of the limits of government's responsibilities and capabilities, and presidential modesty seem positively antiquated today. This type of man could never be president in the 21st century. Yet, that does not mean that he cannot continue to inspire those who greet the coming epoch with more than a bit of skepticism.
No matter the passage of time or the changes to our government and political system, 76 years after his death, Coolidge's ideals and beliefs still ring true.
By Ryan L. Cole
January 5, 2009
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/05/keeping-cool-with-coolidge
Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
