Friday, June 05, 2009

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

I thought the government was supposed to have a separation of church and state?

Our local paper has a poll today, asking:
"Should consumers who trade in their older vehicles get government vouchers to buy newer cars?"

Obama voters would generally say:
"Yeah! Great idea. Would really help people make the switch to greener technologies and help GM & Chrysler get back on their feet."
--- Or worse ---
"Heck. You'd be dumb not to take advantage of free money."

Except of course what Obama voters don't consider is that the money for the voucher has to come from somewhere -- more like from "someone."

This, gentle readers, should illustrate to the difference between a "credit" and a "tax reduction" or "tax return." Tax returns and/or reductions are monies that are already the taxpayers -- money he/she has already earned that you allow them to keep or get back. This as opposed to monies coming from the raised taxes paid by other taxpayers who didn't (or couldn't) do this activity.

The same is true for all these "stimulus saved or created jobs." The only good news that could come from stimulus would be a job created in the private sector. While I'm happy people still have gigs and I wouldn't wish to be unemployed, I'd be much happier and the economy would be MUCH better off if the jobs were OUTside of government.

Wealth (and tax monies) can only be truly created by the marketplace from the private sector. Otherwise, you are just spreading tax money from one hand to the other.

With all the who-ha about "being green" and "sustainability," the above outlined strategy is itself an "unsustainable" daisy chain with the green of taxpayers.

For all their talk about separating Church and State, The Left routinely resorts to Robbing Peter to pay Paul. This is especially the case when they seek to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

(And "seize" is the operative word ;-)