I may not be a Nobel Prize winning economist like Paul Krugman but it seems to me that creating a ton of government make work jobs isn’t the way out of the economic problems we are experiencing. Mr. Krugman is advocating a new New Deal. Maybe that’s because during economic difficulties economists get a lot of talking head time and the co-eds in Princeton dig a guy on the TV. Maybe it’s because socialists like Krugman still worship at the altar of FDR and see Obama as some sort of FDR/JFK hybrid (you know how they love their hybrids) with a little Clean Gene McCarthy thrown in for good measure. Like I said I am no Nobel Prize winning economist but even a big freakin’ hillbilly like me can figure out that each new government job has to cost the government more than it brings in. If it didn’t the solution to any economic crisis would be to expand the size of government. I believe that was tried in Russia and in the words of the great second level philosopher Dr. Phil. “How did that work for you?”
Soon to be President Obama has promised to either create or save somewhere between ten and three million jobs. I have a few questions. How does the President create jobs? Sure he can expand the number of government employees but are those jobs? Every person who pulls a government check is a drain on the economy from the guy behind the big desk to the person sweeping the floor out at Area 51. The President can try to foster conditions that encourage people who run businesses to hire more people but he can’t actually create those jobs. When the President raises taxes whether it’s on the top three percent of earners or on corporations he discourages the creation of jobs.
More interesting is the stat that the new president has created which is job saves. Exactly how do you tell that you saved a job? There is no subjective way to do this so why not just claim that you have saved the job of every person who is working in the United States today? Why stop there? Why not claim that your policies have kept a few million Chinese working as well? Maybe bailing out falling businesses like GM and AIG actually costs us future jobs in better run companies with better products. Too bad this current idea that some businesses are too big to fail wasn’t around at the turn of the last century we might still have a thriving stagecoach and bustle manufacturing plants cranking out useless products today!
We conservatives are in a tough spot when it comes to demanding less government spending. Bush trashed the time honored conservative principle that we were against big government by trying to spend his way to popularity with the left. Some drugs for old folks here, an earmark there, a barrel of pork or two and then add a few hugs bailout and pretty soon we are talking serious money. Now true conservatives are in the same position as a reformed compulsive gambler trying to stop his wife from spending. NO matter how sensible and well reasoned his logic his wife can always remind him of all the money he wasted on his gambling addiction. When conservatives in congress try to put the brakes on runaway spending the liberals can just throw Bush’s deficits in our collective face and continue on their merry socialistic way.
If the inauguration of the new President is any indication the spending in Washington isn’t about to slow down. I know politics has a short term memory problem but back in 2004 the left threw a hissy fit about the Bush committee spending fifty million on his second inauguration. The Obama tab is at 150 and rising in economic hard times. Perhaps the solution to the whole economic problem is for the Obama administration to just keep the whole celebration going for the next four years.