The mass media has once again decided to focus on job loss resulting from attempts by government to live within its current means. This blog entry is not intended to minimize the circumstances of those featured. The news today (1, 2) does not constitute the only recent reports putting a face on budget cuts. Rather, this entry is intended to call attention to situations fiscally-conservative economists have, for centuries, considered predictable and inevitable.
Elected officials, in fair pasture days, had the luxury of forgetting simple laws of conservation, more popularly referenced as the absence of free lunches. They promised special interest programs to get re-election votes on the assumption taxpayers were some mutant breed of turnip, willing and able to give any amount of blood at any time, without wringing or squeezing. What is needless to say for the logician, will likely always be a mystery to politicians, who suffer a greater motive to serve special interests than the average professional and are therefore more inclined to repeat the pitfalls of history. (Giving the reader the benefit of a doubt, I won’t say it.)
The problem now faced by government is not that there isn’t enough money to go around. That would be a free-market absurdity. The real problem is that government-enforced programs are taking money away from activities people consider productive and conducive to a healthy standard of living. There will be judgment calls, since all but principles are tainted shades of gray. The fact remains, government needs to downsize.
Now, if we were good people, we would sympathize with the unemployed and maybe help them find private-sector employment. If we were better people, we wouldn’t have allowed government to get so over-bloated in the first place. And if we were even better people, we would be celebrating the governor’s wishes to avoid ridiculous tax hikes that would further cramp the private sector’s ability to engage in productive pursuits.
