If the history of political meddling in the economy teaches us anything, it is that people seldom come to a realization of basic economic realities. That’s why President Obama can come up with yet another plan to ‘stimulate’ our economy like this:
That’s why we need to take further steps to create jobs and keep the economy growing, including extending tax cuts for the middle class and investing in the areas of our economy where the potential for job growth is greatest.
The simple fact lost on many is that all of this involves taking money we don’t have (which will mean increased debt and/or future devaluing of our currency) and spending it in ways that politicians deem appropriate. What it really, in effect, represents is government taking our money from us and deciding how to spend it for us.
[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=obama+economy&iid=9647673″ src=”http://view4.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/9647673/president-obama-speaks-the/president-obama-speaks-the.jpg?size=500&imageId=9647673″ width=”234″ height=”167″ /]”Extending tax cuts for the middle class” implies that only that segment of income earners defined as “middle class” by politicians and deemed worthy of tax breaks will benefit from such a measure. The “investing” (which is government code for “spending”) in areas of the economy “where the potential for job growth is greatest” means government deciding what industries and individuals should be subsidized.
Both proposed measures amount to government picking winners and losers in society based on its subjective judgment of who deserves more money. These types of actions have been used by governments over the years to favor one set of individuals over another. Taking money from one group of people and giving to a politically favored group is a favorite game played by politicians eager to earn votes from those getting the money.
And all the while, they mask their actions in lofty language like ‘recovery,’ ‘stimulus,’ ‘investment’ and ‘jobs plan.’ While some voters, unfortunately, understand this yet still favor allowing politicians to take money from some and give it to others, many fail to think through the issue. A large subset of voters fall for it — not acknowledging the economic reality that the money has to come from somewhere. What would that money have been spent on had the politicians not taken it to subsidize their favorites and just simply left things alone?
* The preceding was originally posted on the Young Americans for Liberty blog.