#4 Where there is a soup line, there will be a line for soup.
When our Federal government moved to extend unemployment benefits from six months to twelve months, it put a burr in my blanket. Not that I have anything against the unemployed. I have been unemployed. When Emery Air Freight was bought out by Consolidated Freightways (CF), they fired all 2400 managers across the country. Our little CF hatchet party took us out to dinner the night before. I now lightly refer to it as the Last Supper. The next morning, they took my boss, Mike into his office, and met with him. When he came out of the office, I knew from the look on his face, that he was history. I felt so bad for him. He said that they wanted to talk to me in his office. I figured that they were going to justify Mike’s firing. When the little man closed the door, he said that he had been reviewing my records. I thought this was a good thing, my reviews had been exemplary. For a moment, I thought that they were going to move me into Mike’s position. What a moral dilemma? Needless to say, the situation was not something that I had to deal with for long. He said, “We are going to have to let you go.” It was a full hit below the belt. I was out of the office by 11:00 a.m. No severance, no expense account, no company car, no thanks for your five years of service. The new team was waiting in a nearby hotel, for the slaughter to be cleaned up.
So I have sympathy and empathy, for those that lose their job. But, I also know intuitively that if you extend benefits from six to twelve months, you will have a group that will go unemployed for six months longer. A safety net becomes a reason for less urgency. It was at this point that I came up with the soup adage. The idea that people will line up for benefits is nothing new. It is certainly not limited to people. In fact, there is a whole gaggle of groups that have learned the game very well. I would encourage you to read a book called, “Free Lunch” by David Cay Johnston. Wal-Mart has certainly learned to line up at the tax trough. George Bush and the Texas Rangers, and many other sports franchises figured out how to soak the system. But before you go blaming business, none of this could have even been in play, if it weren’t for the government sweet deals. For a government whose intent is to create a level playing field, it is not difficult to see how ineffective government is. I would argue that if income equality is one of the goals of the government (it should not be by the way), the U.S. Federal government has been instrumental in creating a U.S. distribution of income that is more representative of a third world nation. Lyndon Johnson’s 1967 War on poverty has turned out to the assault in the middle class. It has happened because smart people can take advantage of complicated laws. The rich get richer because the poor can’t afford lawyers to figure out all the profitable loopholes in rules. If you want to blame corporate America for our trouble, go ahead. The reality is that when you have more and more government, you enjoy less and less freedom. Furthermore, the more government passes laws to try to “fix” the problem, the bigger the problem becomes. Government begets more government. I encourage you to read the late Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. He spent three years researching the Global Warming issue, to come to the conclusion, that scientists do not agree and that the environmental movement has created a money machine that exists by promoting a problem that is just an theory with little proof. Check out Crichton’s addendum for an amazing characterization of the environmental efforts that have lead to crazy unintentional consequences.
Today’s society is clamoring for a government solution to the economic crisis. It is said we have to have education, health care, protection of the environment, social security, bank reform, job creation and more. If you want the government to come to the rescue, you have become numb to the fact that government has been passing laws for five decades to address these very issues. My response would be, “No thanks, I would prefer that you don’t help us any more.” If a thirteen trillion dollar debt is not a clue of the government’s inability to solve problems, I have no clue. To solve the crisis by asking government to help is like asking the man who just pushed you down the stairs for a hand at the edge of a mountain. It reminds me of Ken Follett’s book, World Without End. The priests would treat the sick by bleeding them or some other ridiculous treatment. When the patient got worse, the priests’ response was… more bleeding! Some of the priests blamed the patients for their own sickness. Sin was the reason for the sickness and the person needed to be purified. The first theorist that I remember that blamed the economy on lack of consumer spending was none other than, John Maynard Keynes. Paraphrasing in my best Yosemite Sam voice, “Too much saving goin’ on here. Gov’ment needs to jump in there, and give it some economic Viagra! Can’t get it up on its own, you see!” Keynes theorized, even if government has to go into debt, the economy will only recover if the government plays the role of healer. Folks, if you believe in Keynesian economics, which evidently Bush 43 (and most administrations since 1932, Kennedy and Reagan being the exceptions) did wholeheartedly, I must tell you that Bush 43 skipped class at Yale, the day the second half of Keynes’ book was covered. The second half said when things are going well government should shut down programs, get out of the economy, and pay off debt. Bush must have been at cheerleading camp or at the pub, or somewhere when they covered this little tidbit.
Back to the principle at hand, legislators should realize that whatever program is created, people will adjust their activities to take advantage of the program. That goes for individuals, groups, organizations or corporations as well.
¡°When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
Ben Franklin
Not me, but i do not know the author yet, but will find out.
Reply With Quote
