Deficit Spending and Debt
Let’s say that economically speaking, deficit spending to induce economic prosperity might be OK IF, and this is a big IF, it is directed at the only areas of the U.S. economy that drives our consumption-based society-tax reductions for Consumers and Business.
If people have more money, they spend it; that helps the economy create jobs and guess what? Pay more taxes.
However, it’s important to repay the debt incurred in deficit spending beginning as soon as the economy moves into positive growth for two quarters.
The problem is that Washington has an insatiable appetite for revenue, most of which comes from taxes, and cannot, even under pain of death, reduce spending and evidence fiscal austerity through debt reduction, which by the way, would help to keep interest rates lower than they would be otherwise.
Any idiot who argues that national debt is not a problem because “we owe it to ourselves,” and that interest payments on debt aren’t a drag on the economy overall has just not looked at the empirical evidence to the contrary. An economy driven by national debt has a very weak engine for propulsion.
Absent a time machine to change history, I can’t prove it, but considerable research seems to have proved that government spending is the “least productive,” creates the least jobs, and takes away major incentives for new capital investment in business overall,and specifically in enterprise-building, entrepreneurial investments.
Green Energy and NIMBY.
Isn’t it hilarious? Nantucket, the home of the Kennedys, an area so liberal overall regarding Energy Policy that they overwhelmingly support Cap ‘N Trade-blow-the-economy-to-hell-legislation, is fighting tooth and nail to keep an offshore wind farm away from their private territory.
Wow! The Supreme Court decides that Free Speech considerations offer much more sanctuary to corporate “Citizens,” having conluded that corporations have expanded citizenship rights regarding speech directed at the political process. The ACLU gets apopolectic, politicians drool at the expanded resouces potential (translate contributions to campaigns and to cause-related advertising), politicians of every stripe worry about the advantage for the “other” guy.
My worry? I don’t believe corporate citizenship is a Constitutionally-authorized construct. Corporations are a legal construct, to be sure, but extending Citizenship rights opens a doorway to a future I just don’t want to contemplate because I see the balance of power between consumers and business, already slightly out of whack, being further bastardized by unrestrained influence. We continue to hurt our potential as a nation of free market entrepreneurs if indiividual rights and opportunities are minimalized by louder voices, ironically enough, funded with the profits generated by selling to thosse very same individuals.
We’re giving them the bullets-the ability through contributions to expand their political voice- for their guns-advertising programs and contributions- to use fo further their interests! Since when is a collective-a corporation, a partnership-of many individuals, suddenly entitled to an extra “vote.” The Founding Fathers fought ferociously to establish individal rights as the foundation of our society and government; in no place have I read, and I looked, for the phrase “Artifical Citizens as embodied in a legal framework of corporations.”