The Democrat Congress approved another bailout, this time $26 billion for states. Supposedly, the bill won’t increase the deficit and will help states keep from laying off teachers and first responders. There is so much wrong with this bill, but I’ll be as succinct as possible.
First, this bill—like the others—WILL increase the deficit. We are told it will be paid for by closing a business tax loophole and cutting food stamp payments in 2014. “Closing the loophole” is a tax increase that will have negative unintended consequences, and if you really believe food stamp payments in 2014 will change as a result of this bill, then you are naïve as Obama must think you are.
Second, education and local police and fire protection are the Constitutional responsibility of states and local municipalities. The federal government should play no role in hiring teachers and policemen. States are free to raise their own taxes if they wish, and the fact that they have chosen not to means they are either facing budget realities on their own or they are cajoling Washington for more money they don’t have to raise on their own.
I don’t expect many states to refuse the money. Even if they strongly disagree with the approach, governors and state legislators know that their citizens will ultimately pay for it one way or another, so why not get their share of the pork? But herein lies the problem. States cannot print money and are not able to incur debt to the extent that the federal government can. Washington is simply doing the dirty work for the states, who are able to avoid tough budget choices without raising taxes. We are supposed to see the Obama administration as the compassionate caretaker willing to step in and help when states are in trouble. We’re supposed to feel warm and fuzzy. We aren’t supposed to ask the obvious questions:
Who is really going to pay for this? You will—sooner or later—if you earn enough to pay taxes.
Why can’t the states raise their own taxes? They can, but they chose not to.
What’s going to happen if and when state budgets run short next year? They’ll expect another bailout.
Why is any of this Washington’s business? It’s not.
If it makes sense to reduce food stamp payments by $12 billion in 2014 or to close a business tax loophole, then why tie these reductions to more spending? The Democrats are not interested in cutting either spending or the deficit.
Why are we constantly told that more spending is needed to save teachers, police officers, and firefighters, while less popular programs are not on the cutting block? This is a con game. The public simply would not stand for $26 billion more to fund the burgeoning welfare state.
If this $26 billion bailout is sorely needed, why not simply redirect unspent funds from the previous bailout? This bill is really about expanding government and buying votes.
Why is Obama telling us that it’s time for the federal government to make hard budget choices when he’s unwilling to let states make their own? He’s simply not serious about fiscal responsibility.
We will be told that those who oppose incurring $26 billion in additional national debt so that states won’t have to balance their own budgets just hate kids, oppose education, or don’t want to fight crime. Don’t let them frame the argument around emotion. This is a golden opportunity for Republicans who are serious about limited government to take a stand. Let’s hope they do.
Parnell, you’re wrong on this one. Republicans need to be compassionate and the states need help BECAUSE they can’t print their own money and incur debt when times are tough. Our teachers, firemen, and policemen are too important. If the federal government won’t step in, who will? Republicans who don’t support this are simply out of touch.
Hey Gerry, we’re flat broke. We can’t afford any more!
Gerry, you are wrong on this one, sorry. We are all adults here. The President and Congress should treat us as such. Of course we need teachers and emergency responders. No one is saying we don’t. It’s the same tired straw man argument. We understand tough choices have to be made. But don’t try to pull this over on us yet again. How many more “crises” will we have to endure? We will go with program if we are treated like intelligent people. Dr. Parnell has it right. They treat us like we are fools.
To further develop Dr. Parnell’s story, the WSJ lead editorial today called “Stimulus Pushers” describes even more craziness behind this recent bailout. Read it. The strings attached stipulate the money must supplement, not replace state spending on education. Further, next year state spending on education must be equal to or greater than the previous year’s level. Gov. Barbour of La says his state will be worse off in the long run as a result.
Going further, the editorial tells us that while student enrollment has increased 22% from 1990 throufgh 2007, teacher employment grew by 41%! Is there really no room for some cutbacks? Then there is the effect of how this stimulus money will flow directly to union coffers via union dues. How convenient.
The devil is always in the details. It takes a little looking to get past the feel-good rhetoric and demagoguery. Don’t fall for it.