Oppose Stimulus? Dont take the money?
In a commentary written today by Paul Begala on CNN.com, he makes many assertations about the spending of the stimulus package by those opposed to the very idea of it. Fallacious thinking does form the foundation for socialism, so it is important to look at the basic steps used to make certain assertations, and find if they hold water under further inspection. In the beginning, Begala states his main point that those opposed to stimulus spending should not take or be allowed to take the money doled out by it. Looking at this objectively begets the truth behind his thinking. This could be expanded to mean that me opposing federally funded schools should follow by me not going to one. I indeed do go to the state funded schools, and see no correlation (nor causation) to his point. If a policy has been enacted, refusing to follow the dictations it has set serves no purpose. This just perpetuates the initial problem of government spending; with no profit incentive, government has no reason to be efficient. I bet that Begala, as a former Clinton strategist, sees it unfit that Microsoft has a very large share of the computer software market, yet I am very sure that at least one of the computers he works on every day has some Microsoft component.
Has he followed what he believes by strict adherence? No.
Saying that opponents should not take any of the money shows his true wish.....that his party of socialists be allowed to spend the money as they see fit. Not liking partisan politics makes me feel objective in stating that objective individuals need to realize that Democrats as a group look at spending money like a kid in a candy store. Allowing for the absolute correction of problems by intervention, some of the worlds biggest problems have been created.
Further on, Begala states
"Under the Bush-Sanford economic theories, South Carolina's unemployment
rate has reached 9.5 percent -- among the highest in the nation. But if
Gov. Sanford wants to continue those policies, good luck to him."
This is a very narrow, uninformed view of the situation. Saying Bush or any one person is responsible can not be further from the point, while claiming that allowing markets to function is the cause of problems just shows a lack of true economics knowledge. Markets function until such point that there is some factor that blocks proper market function, allowing for the fact that market correction is not an instant process. This market blockage can be caused by a multitude of factors, including minimum wage, rent controls, quality standards etc. When these and other "taxes" are enacted on a system, there is immediately a loss in consumer and producer surplus. Surplus is the benefit that a group gets above and beyond what it receives in tangible benefits. When producers lose some of their surplus, they are less likely to hire that one extra person. When one less person has a job, that person has x less dollars. When x less dollars are being spent at businesses, those businesses have x less dollars to pay in salary to workers. Begala insists that not intervening in a market is the cause of high unemployment, neglecting to look at a multitude of factors which would be too long and tedious to write in this entry.
Begala goes on to talk about how Gov. Sanford (the topic of his ranting), derides neighborhood electric vehicles. Begala states that these vehicles "create jobs, save money and reduce pollution". The creation of jobs is a zero sum gain in this point. If there are more electric vehicles being bought, who loses? The answer, unsurprisingly, is those who created the normal vehicles of yesteryear, aka Ford, Gm, Chrysler, etc. When these jobs are lost, who gets the blame but those who saw no initial intervention as the solution to a problem. Saving of money is not literally true, as buying new vehicles, paying for power, paying for repairs etc. can not be forgotten costs. Pollution from initial vehicle usage can cause a decrease in pollution, only until the pollution from extra power production is considered. Thinking logically, one should realize that these new electric cars have to be powered by something, and that something is the outlets in the walls of many garages. If this is how cars are to be powered, power plants will see a surplus of demand for their product. When a surplus of demand for a good is realized, introduction to economics students learn how the price will go up. When Beanie Babies were the cats meow ten years ago, the price of them rose as the desire to purchase them increased. Therefore, the costs of running an electric cars can not be considered lower than gas powered cars, in the explicit cost scenario. To some, the thought of "saving the earth" may hold some virtue.
Through the rest of the article, Begala spouts the socialist calling card ideas. With these, he basically shows how government spending will increase the welfare of the country. As empirical data has shown, decreasing taxes shows the biggest increase in tax revenues. Unsurprisingly, Begala's solution is to allow taxes to increase, assuming there is a positive, and not negative correlation.