As we get closer to the Easter holidays, you might want to prepare yourself for that crazy uncle at your family gathering who will likely be foaming at the mouth about federal spending. A good article to show him is this one. The fact is, folks, that when the government spends less money, it has a real world impact.
These reductions, economists say, act as a drag on the economy. Former park employees, clerks, and firefighters such as Lykins are buying only the necessities. Cities are deferring road work, which means contractors aren't hiring people to pour concrete. By far, the largest impact is on school systems, which are laying off teachers, counselors, and janitors.
With the sequester kicking in last Friday, this sort of thing is now going to happening on a national scale. The anti-spending anaphylactoids seem to be operating under the assumption that federal spending occurs in a void filled with evil, darkness and nothing else. Never mind the fact that while all the spending is going on there is revenue coming in and a 15 trillion dollar economy out there that creates the need for government services.
When you cut these services, people like Brian Lykins are affected. "A lot of the private sector depends on the public sector," says Chris Hoene, director of research and innovation at the National League of Cities in Washington. "There are estimates that for every $3 spent at the municipal level, there is $1 in new private-sector activity."
The sooner we accept the fact that government spending is essential to our economy and, more importantly, that as our economy grows, our spending must grow as well, the better position we will be in to finally tackle our long term, economic concerns.
12 comments:
Gov't hires people -> those people spend money -> good for economy. ?
Great. Try this: Gov't hires half the population to dig holes in ground -> Gov't hires other half of population to fill holes back in -> Everyone employed and spending money -> Economy GREAT..... Right? Right?
That's why the government is not a jobs program.
The Grand Coulee Dam is an example of how completely wrong you are, GD.
The grand coulee dam project ACTUALLY DOES SOMETHING.
Your argument is 'we can't cut the budget because some gov't employee's won't have money to spend in the economy'. That is the sum total of the criteria you use. You, for one, do not even bother to consider whether that particular gov't employee's position is necessary, needed or even beneficial. Your cost/benefit analysis ends at 'gov't spending is good'. By THAT SAME FUCKING METRIC hiring 1/2 the population to dig holes and the other half to fill them in FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU YOURSELF USE to justify gov't employment.
The GCD was finished in 1942 (with a 3rd generating facility added in 1974).
Got anything this century M?
I'd say that Brian Lykins certainly does something as valuable as the Grand Coulee Dam...perhaps more than that.
And my point in bringing in the Grand Coulee Dam is counter your hole digging meme which is yet another "gubmint bad" load of bs.
So you are comparing fire-fighting to dam-building without considering how they are different, only that they are both paid for out of the public purse.
I'd say that Brian Lykins certainly does something as valuable as the Grand Coulee Dam...perhaps more than that.
But you didn't say that. Your argument never mentions any harm done by his services not being performed. You only use the argument that gov't spending 'filters' back out to private sector.....
So.....dig holes and fill them back in IS the foundation of your load of BS.
Of course, Mark's taking the ridiculous position that all government spending is equal. Simply because some government spending is necessary, then not only is nearly all of it necessary, but even more is necessary.
Mark is a a walking, talking example of the kind of economic dumbassery described in Bastiat's "What Is Seen, and What Is Not Seen."
In a 15 trillion dollar economy, how much should the government spend and on what? Our budget right now is around 3.8 trillion with 2.9 trillion in revenue coming in. What number should it be and where should we make the cuts?
That is, any cuts in government spending results in some government workers losing their jobs. Which is a very visible bad effect. Which also completely ignores the fact that government cannot spend a penny that it has not first taken directly out of the economy by taxation, or indirectly by borrowing against the future or by inflating the money supply, which results in private sector jobs not being created. Government spending does indeed have a multiplier effect, but because of government overhead, inefficiency, and opportunities for graft and political wheeling and dealing, the multiplier is probably about 0.8.
In a 15 trillion dollar economy, how much should the government spend and on what?
The size of the economy shouldn't be a primary factor in deciding what the govt should spend.
Carter was right about zero based budgeting - and the federal bureaucracy resistance was overwhelming and successful.
Our budget right now is around 3.8 trillion with 2.9 trillion in revenue coming in.
Do you contend that every single one of those dollars is necessary to spend? That not one of them can be cut?
Post a Comment