Skip to comments.Patches Won’t Save a Sinking Ship
Posted on 04/02/2008 1:51:26 PM PDT by K-oneTexas
How would you feel about working for a company which issued the following mandate?
To All Employees,
Due to foreign competition, we find that our sales have declined in recent years. To stimulate sales, we have decided to give all employees a $10.00 gift certificate this coming July which can be used to purchase any of our products. This should help to increase our sales.
It has also come to our attention that some of our lower income, unskilled workers are having trouble with their car payments. As you know, we require anyone working at this company to drive a car no more than 10 years old to comply with environmental standards and to maintain the impression of working for a prosperous company. To help our lower income workers purchase new cars, we were able to arrange financing with no interest payments for 2 years.
Unfortunately, and unforeseen to us, now that the 2 years has expired and accumulated interest is being applied to those car payments, our workers find they can no longer afford the cars and may lose them through repossession. To help them out, we have decided to make those payments for them so that they may keep their cars. We are also giving money to our investment brokers to replace the funds they lost through irresponsible and unwise investments of your retirement withholdings.
Naturally, we expect that the beneficiaries will gladly accept the terms of these new programs which include such things as the kind of gas used in their cars, regular inspection of their finances, control over the health and education of their children, the kinds of food to be placed on their dinner tables, the type of light bulbs used in their homes, and control of their TV watching and radio listening habits.
We, in management, are certain that you will understand that this will be a huge expense for the company. We are, however, confident that all employees will cheerfully accept another 10% reduction in pay to cover these additional expenses. Also note that because of this, and other brilliant work conceived by our management staff, they have all been given a 10% increase in salary.
We thank you for your patriotism and loyalty to our great company and appreciate the sacrifices you have made for the general welfare and common good of all employees.
The Management Staff
Would you want to work for that company? No? But this is exactly what Congress, President Bush, and the United States government are telling us. By subsidizing investment firms like Bear Stearns, by subsidizing low income, new homeowners who can't afford the homes they bought under temporary low interest mortgages, and by printing up more money to pass out under the pretense of a "stimulus package," they are essentially giving all Americans a reduction in pay by increasing inflation, making your dollars worth less, and redistributing the wealth to the poor.
On top of that, Congress now wants to raise your taxes to recover the money they intend to pass out in June and July. When all is said and done, the result will be that individual buying power will have been reduced, the poor will be further subsidized and regulated by the government, and Congress will have more of your money to spend on their special interests, not yours.
Along with these handouts of your money by the government comes government regulations and conditions. Just as federal government has taken control of public schools by buying influence with subsidies, they are now trying to do the same thing with corporate America. If successful, eventually the federal government will have control over the free market and all commerce within the United States. Even contractors who are not directly affected by new regulations will be bound by them through contracts with companies who are.
Much of the problem we see today stems from President Bushs concept of an ownership society. It seemed like a good policy at the time, but it turns out that not all Americans can afford to be owners. The policy was pushed just too far. Add to that the propensity of the Democrats to subsidize and regulate every aspect of American life, they saw their opportunity with Bushs ownership society and knew that the only way their low income constituent voters could participate in it was to subsidize them with taxpayers money. This won the approval of compassionate conservative, George W. Bush. As we have seen, Bush is certainly compassionate, but hardly a conservative when it comes to big government and the economy.
Every time there is seen a sag in the economy, the government attempts to put a patch on it. Usually, that patch causes another problem in another part of the economy. Instead of letting free market competition control the economy, those serving in government today feel its their job to do it. Our economy has now become like a sinking ship. Every time it springs a leak, they pull a plank off of another part of the ship to repair it. Then a leak appears where the plank was pulled from and they do it all over again. Never does the ship return to its home port for a proper repair. Eventually there is nothing left but a sinking hull of patches, and that is where we are now with the economy. This is what government interference in the free enterprise system has done for us. Whats even worse is that no one in the government has any idea of how to fix it because they dont understand the problem.
Certain government regulation of commerce is good and necessary for consumer protection. Over-regulation by government is disastrous to business in America. Government interference with, and attempts to control the market economy, rather than allowing the economy to follow its natural course, is a disastrous policy. It can reasonably be compared to government politicians dictating social policy to the citizens as they have also been attempting to do, instead of representing the citizens within the government as was originally intended. The economy needs to represent commerce, not the other way around.
We have now reached the point to where those in Congress feel they have the power to do whatever they wish with our tax money. And with every dollar they pass out comes conditions and regulations. Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to give away our money to anyone? Nowhere - thats where. But Congress doesnt care about the Constitution or operating within its limits. And why should they? Who is going to hold Congress, the president, or the United States government accountable to the Constitution if they refuse to honor the oath of office they all took?
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.
Perhaps politicians feel that support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies doesnt refer to them. Perhaps the authors of the Oath of Office overlooked one important word - obey. Obviously, those serving our country in Congress and the White House feel an obligation to support and defend our Constitution against foreign enemies, but no obligation to obey it themselves. This is the audacity of politicians today.
Given enough time and enough liberals in Congress, it won't be long before all businesses in the country will be governed and run by morons in government who know virtually nothing about the industries they are trying to control and manage. It didn't work in communist Russia, it isn't working in communist China, and it will doom America to utter collapse.
Yet, this road that Communist Russia and Communist China are now turning away from, America is just starting to travel down. The day may not be too far off when Russia and China are demanding freedom and democracy be given a chance in a Communist America.
JR Dieckmann is Editor, Publisher, Writer, and Webmaster of GreatAmericanJournal.com. He also works as an electrician in Los Angeles, Ca. He has been writing and publishing articles on the web since 2000. His articles appear on other publications such as: RealClearPolitics; New Media Journal; Mich News; Daley Times-Post; Renew America, and other conservative websites
The problem with deferred economic pain is that when the house of cards finally does tumble, it’ll be even worse than if we let it come down gradually.
“There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.......Ludwig Von Mises
“Paper money will ruin commerce, oppress the honest and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice.”
“With the monetary system we have now, the careful savings of a lifetime can be wiped out in an eye blink.” This horrible suggestion refers to a renewed possibility of hyperinflation. Parks
And they have acted just like the ‘Management’ of this fictitious company. Prime the printing presses, a large order for degraded currency is in process.
Too many big words, the article is too long, and there are no references to Britney, American Idol, or “Lost”.
The Sheep will never read this.
Thought that sounded like our government at work in the title!
“Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to give away our money to anyone? Nowhere - thats where.”
ehhh, not exactly true. Congress approves spending. Exclusively. Congress and Congress alone.
I’m definitely with you in sentiment, though, the Fed is absolutely NOT authorized to give away taxpayer money by authorizing a loan, losses or shortfalls in which will explicitly accrue to the Treasury, per Mr. Paulsen’s statement. It’s entirely extra-Constitutional....unless, of course, some “national security” implication is dreamed up post-facto regarding the need to make such a loan.
Personally, I would prefer not to construct “analogies” regarding this situation. It’s both as succinct as it can be and as complex as it need be just on statement of fact as the facts are.