There's a scene in the movie, "Dave," where Kevin Kline and Sigourney Weaver are sitting and talking. Kline plays a small-time entertainer and businessman who happens to bear a striking resemblence to the sitting President of the United States. He is hired to impersonate the President for a simple walk to the limosine while the big guy stayed upstairs. The big guy ends up having a stroke, and Kline finds himself staying in the chair.
Weaver plays the real President's wife, who quickly figures out what Kline is; a fake. Apparently her relationship with her real husband leaves a lot to be desired, and she finds she gets along much better with the fake. Even though the evil Chief of Staff has kept Kline in place for his own purposes, comes the moment when Kline and Weaver are sitting and talking about the fact that, as long as everyone thinks he's the President, he really is. I forget who says the line, but it goes something like this;
"Let's use all this power to do something good."
That's the trap that Liberals fall into, and that is the power OF power to corrupt. A good person, who honestly wants to do good, to help people, finds themselves with the power of the federal government at their fingertips and the answers all seem obvious. And that's commendable. But, I'm sorry, I can't help but think that sometimes there's a better way.
Here's a simple example. You need a hole in your back yard. You have a nuclear weapon. Problem solved, right? Take it to the next step; you know a million people who need holes, and that nuclear weapon should make a hole plenty big enough for everyone to share.
Now, maybe I'm just a stupid ol' hick, but it seems to me a million shovels would do the same job, and much better.
I have the same point of view when it comes to good works done by the government. Anything the federal government can do, the 50 states can do better. If possible, it can be done even better from the county or community level. I'm all for giving help where it's needed, but real help is better than political help.
This is a debate we have here in New Hampshire all the time. Our property taxes are high, but none of our other taxes are. In fact, we have by far the smallest tax burden of any of the New England states. We also have the best education system, which is the biggest expense of local government. New Hampshire is consistantly in the top three or four in every subject in the country.
I firmly believe the reason for this is that our schools are mostly funded on the local level through property taxes. It makes sense to use property as the tax base, because just about everybody lives somewhere. Even renters have to pay it, because the landlords pass on the expense. Plus, you have the added benefit of getting the bill one, two, or four times a year. It makes for an eye-popping figure that gets people interested in being involved in their local governments.
I can't think of a federal welfare program that couldn't be handled better on the local level. There's a simple logic to this. To fund a school through local taxes sends the money from a) the taxpayer to b) the local tax collector and to c) the local school board. The cost of this transfer is minimal. Now try to imagine how many sets of hands, and well-paid hands by the way, a dollar has to go through to get from the taxpayer to the school via the federal gov't. Same school, same students, teachers, books, etc. Why does the money need to go through so many checkpoints?
Same with public welfare. Or anything else, for that matter. In fact, it's kind of the great dirty secret of Conservatism, that if we cut the federal budget, we'll have to increase the budgets for state and local gov'ts. The people these governments represent will have to decide if they want these programs or not.
Another thing to consider is that the cracks that honest people inevitably fall through will be smaller. As a mailman, I had a pretty good idea of who on my route actually needed help. I also knew who was milking the system. And believe me, it's a lot easier to milk a big system than a small one. That is the conservative's complaint with federal welfare; so much of the money gets stolen and wasted. Plus, there are always people who need help and don't get it. The only way to get to them from Washington is spread the net wider, inviting more theft and waste.
I think I've mentioned this before, but my Dad had what I've always thought was a great idea; pay everyone in cash. Give every worker in the country their gross pay in cash, and then make them walk down a line of people taking so much for federal income tax, so much for social security, and so on. It would make us all think a lot more about where our tax dollars go.
So as much as I admire Barack Obama and anybody else who wants to help those in need, I think it would be better if they just got a shovel and helped somebody in their own neighborhood. And please, Barry, no more about the 'failed' Bush economic policies. They're the reason that your investments have done so well. This current crisis is not a failure of the policy. It's a glitch due to a relaxation of an important restriction. If you're smart, you'll fix that problem and then leave the basic policy untouched. Hey, it worked for Clinton.
Let's face facts, Clinton didn't change much that Reagan and Bush handed him. He'd have been a fool to. I'm old enough to remember how things were under Jimmy Carter. When Reagan cut taxes it stimulated investment and the economy flourished. Except for a few bumps here and there, it's continued to do so. We get through this and it will again. We've had a quarter century of prosperity. If you want to do some good, help that top 1% you hate so much to create some jobs that you can take credit for.
And you- yeah, you! Reading this! Why don't YOU take responsibility for helping the people you want the federal government to help? Tell your selectmen and other local officials that charity begins at home. Write your congressman and tell him, too.
Hey, good idea! I'll get right on it.
Go vote, all right?
