While attention may be focused on federal spending, tension on the Korean peninsula, and the Middle East, the government is still at work on other fronts. On Thursday the House took action on the pressing problem of volume in television commercials. A bill was proposed that, among other things, would restrict the volume of television commercials. The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif. was motivated by her own family's "earsplitting" experiences that, according her, nearly "blew them out of the house." Another bill headed to the president's desk is meant to address the crisis of childhood obesity by giving the government control over what sorts of food may be sold in schools. There is enough government that little in the nation is neglected.
It may be argued that television broadcast volume is a legitimate federal concern. Part of the FCC's job is to tend to the television. Part of Congress' job is to tend to the FCC. Despite Eshoo's hyperbole, television volume should not be on the FCC's list. If it must be on the FCC's list, it should be at the bottom. Commercial volume is annoying. It is not a threat to the health, sensibilities, or morals of the American public. It is a nuisance that already has a solution: the volume control. No doubt that is why Eshoo felt compelled to try and elevate the problem through exaggeration. Few would be motivated to support government relief from annoying volume. But "earsplitting" volume that nearly blows one out the door is another matter. Surely something ought to be done about that.
Childhood obesity on the other hand is more than a nuisance. It is a large and growing problem in the country. The House evidently agreed with Michelle Obama and others that our children are being overwhelmed by fatty foods. Candy and snack food makers have moved to fill the slot in our public school system once occupied by drug dealers. Like the furtive drug dealers of old, snack food machines, hamburgers, and pizza are luring our children into a downward spiral of deprivation and misery. If action is not taken now, millions of children will suffer the taunts of others and the miserable fate allotted to the overweight.
The epidemic of obesity plaguing the nation is not due to the food that is sold or provided to Americans, it is about the food purchased and consumed by Americans. People eat hamburgers and pizza because they like to eat hamburgers and pizza, not because people sell them hamburgers and pizza. You can put all the fruit and vegetables you like in front of people but if people don't want to eat it, they won't. Since most Americans like hamburgers, pizza, and candy they would bristle at attempts to prevent them from eating them. A more subtle approach is required. That is why the advocates of leanness are seeking to maneuver America into health by making it more difficult to eat poorly. If children have nothing but healthy food to eat, they will have to eat healthy food. In time, they will learn to enjoy it. If children eat healthy food, they will grow up to be healthy and thin. If they are trained properly, they will remain healthy and thin. That is the theory any way.
Over the years, the public has increasingly looked to the federal government to do for them what they ought to be doing themselves. Parents are the ones who should be making sure their children eat right and exercise, not the government. People should turn down the volume on their TV if it is too loud, not the government. The more government does for people, the less people have to do for themselves. If we can get the government to turn down the volume and keep our kids from eating candy and drinking soda pop at school we will have taken another step towards paradise.
I am surprised that it hasn't occurred to the government that if they turn down the volume for the public the obesity problem in the U.S. might get worse. People won't have to get off the couch if they can't find the remote. On the other hand, if the volume is lowered, people might be reluctant to get up and visit the refrigerator lest they miss the commercials. I suppose it is a toss up.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
A Commendable Start
It is anticipated that when the White House deficit commission unveils it proposals today there will be a lot of upset people across the nation. Along with proposals to raise taxes, many programs and services that Americans find useful and have come to rely upon are facing cuts or elimination. One such program is the mortgage interest deduction popular among home owners. It is argued that the mortgage interest deduction costs the federal government $100 billion in lost tax revenue every year. Kay Weeks, president of the MetroTex Association of Realtors in Dallas, TX predicted that the public will be angry. She argued that the millions of upset voters who shook up Congress in the recent elections will be even more upset. I suspect she is correct. People who voted out congressmen because they felt the government was too big and spending too much money surely did not do so to end up paying more in taxes. Less government is one thing. Paying more for less government is quite another.
In a bold move, the commission is hoping that if the proposals hurt everybody, they will be more easily accepted. It is proposed that the social security retirement age be raised to 67. Cost of living increases will be lessened. Tax credits for mortgage interest would be reduced. If adopted, the proposals would be felt. Some of the proposals would hit people twice. Raising gasoline taxes as proposed will be felt at the pump. It will also be felt at the grocery store and the shopping mall where businesses will pass along increased shipping costs due to higher fuel taxes to consumers.
Eliminating tax breaks is certainly warranted in many cases, but it should not be construed as cutting spending. It is increasing revenue. Not collecting something is different from giving something away. Tax breaks do not give anyone anything they did not already have. It is arrogance of the highest order for the government to assert that by not taking something it is in fact giving something away. It carries the implication that what we have is not really ours and if the government decides it wants it or needs it, it can take it. In a sense, by letting you keep what is yours, the government is just being magnanimous.
The billions the government anticipates it will gain by adjusting the tax code are billions that will not be in the hands of consumers or businesses. That is bad news for the economy. Unless it is stuffed in a mattress or buried in the back yard, money in the hands of consumers is a good thing. Whether it is spent, saved, or invested, the economy benefits. If they spend it, the economy grows. Customarily, when money changes hands, profit is made. If people do not spend it they will save or invest it. If they save it, banks have more money to lend. By lending money banks not only make money, they make it possible for others to earn money by making it available to people who need it to purchase things. If they invest it the economy will gain by allowing businesses to expand and modernize, resulting in new opportunities and a growing economy, assuming it is not stolen by avaricious executives and corrupt financiers.
Raising business taxes is always problematic. Business is often seen as distinct from the rest of society. But it isn't. It is an integral part of it. Without business there would be no economy. If it weren't for capitalism, the economy would still be in the middle ages. One assails business at their own peril. Moreover, higher business taxes are typically passed along to consumers. Where the burdens of higher taxes cannot be passed along they have to be compensated for. Sometimes this is done by laying off workers. Sometimes it is done by raising prices or reducing quality. Some businesses go so far as to relocate overseas.
The real drawback of lower taxes from the government's point of view is that it has less money to spend. It matters little to the government how much money individuals or businesses have other than what it represents as tax revenue. The government's real concern is how much money it has, not the tax payer. Low taxes are a boon to citizens but they are a hindrance to government.
The government needs to take a long hard look at spending. They need to reduce it. The Fiscal Commission has made a commendable effort to do so. Programs and services are going to have to be cut. People are going to be upset. Some are going to be hurt. But is arrogant to describe tightening the tax code as curtailing gifts as some are doing. Taking less is not giving. Paying taxes is a transaction. The public provides money to the government. In return, the government provides services to the people. It is likely in the near future the public will be paying more and getting less. Weeks is correct. The public will be angry. Anyone would be.
The issue at hand is not about government. Some of what the government does is necessary. Some of what the government does is beneficial. Some of what the government does is wasteful. Some of what the government does is harmful. That is what is going to have to be sorted out. If that can be done, the task of identifying where cuts should be made will be easier. It will still be painful but the country will be stronger for it. Neither is the issue simply about taxes. Taxes have to be collected if the government is to operate. The government has to operate if we are to have a civilized society. At the bottom, the issue is about what we want and expect from government and what we are willing to pay for it.
We cannot expect the government to do what we want it to do at the price we have so far been willing to pay. If the U.S. is able to right itself the effort will have been in vain if the American public does not reconsider what it expects from government. If it is unable or unwilling to do so, at the first glimpse of black ink the frenzy will resume.
In a bold move, the commission is hoping that if the proposals hurt everybody, they will be more easily accepted. It is proposed that the social security retirement age be raised to 67. Cost of living increases will be lessened. Tax credits for mortgage interest would be reduced. If adopted, the proposals would be felt. Some of the proposals would hit people twice. Raising gasoline taxes as proposed will be felt at the pump. It will also be felt at the grocery store and the shopping mall where businesses will pass along increased shipping costs due to higher fuel taxes to consumers.
Eliminating tax breaks is certainly warranted in many cases, but it should not be construed as cutting spending. It is increasing revenue. Not collecting something is different from giving something away. Tax breaks do not give anyone anything they did not already have. It is arrogance of the highest order for the government to assert that by not taking something it is in fact giving something away. It carries the implication that what we have is not really ours and if the government decides it wants it or needs it, it can take it. In a sense, by letting you keep what is yours, the government is just being magnanimous.
The billions the government anticipates it will gain by adjusting the tax code are billions that will not be in the hands of consumers or businesses. That is bad news for the economy. Unless it is stuffed in a mattress or buried in the back yard, money in the hands of consumers is a good thing. Whether it is spent, saved, or invested, the economy benefits. If they spend it, the economy grows. Customarily, when money changes hands, profit is made. If people do not spend it they will save or invest it. If they save it, banks have more money to lend. By lending money banks not only make money, they make it possible for others to earn money by making it available to people who need it to purchase things. If they invest it the economy will gain by allowing businesses to expand and modernize, resulting in new opportunities and a growing economy, assuming it is not stolen by avaricious executives and corrupt financiers.
Raising business taxes is always problematic. Business is often seen as distinct from the rest of society. But it isn't. It is an integral part of it. Without business there would be no economy. If it weren't for capitalism, the economy would still be in the middle ages. One assails business at their own peril. Moreover, higher business taxes are typically passed along to consumers. Where the burdens of higher taxes cannot be passed along they have to be compensated for. Sometimes this is done by laying off workers. Sometimes it is done by raising prices or reducing quality. Some businesses go so far as to relocate overseas.
The real drawback of lower taxes from the government's point of view is that it has less money to spend. It matters little to the government how much money individuals or businesses have other than what it represents as tax revenue. The government's real concern is how much money it has, not the tax payer. Low taxes are a boon to citizens but they are a hindrance to government.
The government needs to take a long hard look at spending. They need to reduce it. The Fiscal Commission has made a commendable effort to do so. Programs and services are going to have to be cut. People are going to be upset. Some are going to be hurt. But is arrogant to describe tightening the tax code as curtailing gifts as some are doing. Taking less is not giving. Paying taxes is a transaction. The public provides money to the government. In return, the government provides services to the people. It is likely in the near future the public will be paying more and getting less. Weeks is correct. The public will be angry. Anyone would be.
The issue at hand is not about government. Some of what the government does is necessary. Some of what the government does is beneficial. Some of what the government does is wasteful. Some of what the government does is harmful. That is what is going to have to be sorted out. If that can be done, the task of identifying where cuts should be made will be easier. It will still be painful but the country will be stronger for it. Neither is the issue simply about taxes. Taxes have to be collected if the government is to operate. The government has to operate if we are to have a civilized society. At the bottom, the issue is about what we want and expect from government and what we are willing to pay for it.
We cannot expect the government to do what we want it to do at the price we have so far been willing to pay. If the U.S. is able to right itself the effort will have been in vain if the American public does not reconsider what it expects from government. If it is unable or unwilling to do so, at the first glimpse of black ink the frenzy will resume.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Patriots?
Yesterday President Obama called civil service workers patriots and asked them to take to take a two year pay freeze. Pay raises have become taken for granted by public employees. For the first time in modern history, they are being asked to forgo one. They are angry. They believe that is no way to treat patriots. That may be so but they are not really patriots. Obama was flattering them. They are employees.
Soldiers may be patriots. On occasion, politicians might be patriots. Civilians may be patriotic. Police and firemen are courageous. Pulling children out of a burning building is heroic, but it is not patriotic. We rely on firemen and medics to rescue us. We rely on policemen to protect us. We trust that heroism will be there when we need it. We certainly do not rely on their patriotism. I would rather have a heroic fire department than a patriotic one. I am sure most Americans would. Soldiers may be patriots but are not necessarily so. Volunteering to enlist is not the bar for patriotism. Sacrificing to serve one's country is a patriotic thing. Enlisting to acquire job skills or get money for college is not.
People who go to work at government offices are not patriots. They certainly are not heroic. Most are complacent bureaucrats safely ensconced in recession proof jobs with benefits envied by most of the workforce. If they are unhappy and feel they are being mistreated they can quit. I'll wager they won't. They will only redouble their effort to get what they feel is due to them.
Government workers do not work for themselves. They work for us. If we cannot afford them their annual pay raises then they should not get them. The U.S. is going broke. Costs have to be cut. The tax payers should not have to bear the burden alone. When it comes to cutting costs, the government cannot exclude itself. Government workers forgoing pay raises is no more unjust than autoworkers doing so. Saying we cannot afford to provide their automatic pay raises is not unpatriotic. Far from it.
In a capitalist country, no one can or should take their job for granted. No one should be entitled to automatic pay raises regardless of performance. Besides, if government workers received their raises on the basis of performance, many would not have received a raise in years. If their jobs were tied to performance, many would be lucky to have jobs.
Going to to work is not patriotic. Neither is doing your job. It is a responsibility. Government workers, like most other workers, agree to take their job with the understanding that they will be paid a certain amount for doing a specific task. For the most part, they are not highly trained professionals. They are clerks and bureaucrats, not patriots. If the government cannot afford to give them their automatic pay raises for just showing up to work and doing their job, they should not get them. They are free to find employment elsewhere if the job becomes unbearable. My bet is they won't. Even without an automatic pay raise, they would be hard pressed to find a job where as little was demanded of them for the pay and benefits they receive. They know it. Besides, nothing was said about the next automatic pay raise. It would not be at all surprising if the next raise they get compensates them for the one they are being asked to forgo. If their union is worth its dues, the next raise will be. That is why they might grumble and threaten, but they will not quit. They might decide to do their job with less alacrity and enthusiasm, but who would know?
True patriots go beyond what is expected of them. They risk life and property for love of their country, not for money. Just as a young man who enlists in the military simply to gain money for college, learn a skill, or just get away from home is not a patriot, a person who shows up for work in the Department of Agriculture for no other reason than that is their job is not a patriot.
From what I read and hear, I think most people don't know what a patriot is. It has become little more than a term of respect. If bureaucrats want to be patriots and have the respect of the nation, they will have to earn it. Good luck. If bureaucrats are patriots, what are we to call those who do more than put in forty hours a week in an air conditioned office for a paycheck?
We are on the verge of losing a good and a noble concept. If all patriotism required was displaying a flag, going to work, and publicly avowing your love for the nation and its troops, it would be a cheap thing indeed. A true patriot risks life and property for his country. The government is going broke. Being asked to forgo an automatic pay raise does not seem like much to ask of a patriot, especially when one considers how such an action would be a benefit to the nation.
People should take the time to look up "patriot" in the dictionary. Then they should look up "employee".
Soldiers may be patriots. On occasion, politicians might be patriots. Civilians may be patriotic. Police and firemen are courageous. Pulling children out of a burning building is heroic, but it is not patriotic. We rely on firemen and medics to rescue us. We rely on policemen to protect us. We trust that heroism will be there when we need it. We certainly do not rely on their patriotism. I would rather have a heroic fire department than a patriotic one. I am sure most Americans would. Soldiers may be patriots but are not necessarily so. Volunteering to enlist is not the bar for patriotism. Sacrificing to serve one's country is a patriotic thing. Enlisting to acquire job skills or get money for college is not.
People who go to work at government offices are not patriots. They certainly are not heroic. Most are complacent bureaucrats safely ensconced in recession proof jobs with benefits envied by most of the workforce. If they are unhappy and feel they are being mistreated they can quit. I'll wager they won't. They will only redouble their effort to get what they feel is due to them.
Government workers do not work for themselves. They work for us. If we cannot afford them their annual pay raises then they should not get them. The U.S. is going broke. Costs have to be cut. The tax payers should not have to bear the burden alone. When it comes to cutting costs, the government cannot exclude itself. Government workers forgoing pay raises is no more unjust than autoworkers doing so. Saying we cannot afford to provide their automatic pay raises is not unpatriotic. Far from it.
In a capitalist country, no one can or should take their job for granted. No one should be entitled to automatic pay raises regardless of performance. Besides, if government workers received their raises on the basis of performance, many would not have received a raise in years. If their jobs were tied to performance, many would be lucky to have jobs.
Going to to work is not patriotic. Neither is doing your job. It is a responsibility. Government workers, like most other workers, agree to take their job with the understanding that they will be paid a certain amount for doing a specific task. For the most part, they are not highly trained professionals. They are clerks and bureaucrats, not patriots. If the government cannot afford to give them their automatic pay raises for just showing up to work and doing their job, they should not get them. They are free to find employment elsewhere if the job becomes unbearable. My bet is they won't. Even without an automatic pay raise, they would be hard pressed to find a job where as little was demanded of them for the pay and benefits they receive. They know it. Besides, nothing was said about the next automatic pay raise. It would not be at all surprising if the next raise they get compensates them for the one they are being asked to forgo. If their union is worth its dues, the next raise will be. That is why they might grumble and threaten, but they will not quit. They might decide to do their job with less alacrity and enthusiasm, but who would know?
True patriots go beyond what is expected of them. They risk life and property for love of their country, not for money. Just as a young man who enlists in the military simply to gain money for college, learn a skill, or just get away from home is not a patriot, a person who shows up for work in the Department of Agriculture for no other reason than that is their job is not a patriot.
From what I read and hear, I think most people don't know what a patriot is. It has become little more than a term of respect. If bureaucrats want to be patriots and have the respect of the nation, they will have to earn it. Good luck. If bureaucrats are patriots, what are we to call those who do more than put in forty hours a week in an air conditioned office for a paycheck?
We are on the verge of losing a good and a noble concept. If all patriotism required was displaying a flag, going to work, and publicly avowing your love for the nation and its troops, it would be a cheap thing indeed. A true patriot risks life and property for his country. The government is going broke. Being asked to forgo an automatic pay raise does not seem like much to ask of a patriot, especially when one considers how such an action would be a benefit to the nation.
People should take the time to look up "patriot" in the dictionary. Then they should look up "employee".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)