Government deficit spending can stimulate an economy. However, most government spending, most of the time, is a burden on the economy and our lives, not a stimulant.
Our lives are not improved simply by having more money circulating in the economy and lower unemployment numbers. Our lives are only improved when our time spent working can pay for more of the things we want or when we can spend more time doing the things we enjoy and consider important. Hard work has its own value, but very few of us consider employment the ultimate goal.
Economies grow when more goods and services are purchased during a defined period of time than where purchased during the previous defined period of time. Therefore, if government borrows or prints money to increase spending for the period, the economy will be considered to be growing as long as the private sector does not reduce spending by more than the government increased its spending.
If government spending alone could improve our lives, why not just have government pay for everything? Because there are also negative consequences of deficit spending, that's why.
When government borrows money, less money is available to be borrowed by the private sector without an increase in the amount of interest paid to service the loans. This has not been a problem in the United States recently because China has been willing to take the money they have made off of their exports to America and lend it back to America at reasonable rates, but if the United States decides to start printing money to pay for the deficit spending, China is not likely to lend money back to America if they believe they will be paid back with a cheaper currency. When government prints money, the money supply increases, and the value of each denomination decreases because more are available. This is called inflation which hurts those who save and invest.
Government spending rarely comes with an expiration date. New infrastructure that gets built during recessions needs to be maintained long after the economy recovers. Money spent on social programs creates a dependency from recipients who learn to love handouts more than self reliance. Bureaucracies created by government spending have a life of their own which includes the survival instinct.
Citizens end up paying for government spending with higher taxes or lower purchasing power or higher costs for debt or all of the three. In the end, we may have more actual money, but less real purchasing power and less time doing what we enjoy.
The only real ways the government can stimulate the economy would be to start a business and then the sell the business to private investors or start selling government assets like land and buildings. The citizens of the Untied States really don’t need any more long term obligations/burdens to go along with Social Security and Medicare.
America needs more workers, more affordable housing, and more places to create attractive communities. It's time to start developing government land in places like Utah and Montana. It's time to open America to more immigrants who want to prosper in the land of the free. It's time to really stimulate the economy. Sorry Robert Redford and Ted Turner. You don’t get to hog the best places for yourself anymore.
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Political Irony
Politics and irony were made for each other. Immigration reform has been a top priority of President Bush from the time he announced his intention to seek the Presidency. For his first six years as President, the leadership of George W. Bush helped increase the Republican majority in Congress. For these same six years, Republicans in Congress showed little interest in comprehensive immigration reform.
Most Democrats, who also wanted immigration reform, spent the first six years of the Bush Presidency attacking the integrity, character, and public policies of President Bush. The political tactics of personal destruction succeeded against President Bush in the 2006 elections as a Democratic majority was elected to Congress. Finally, President Bush had a Congress that was willing to attempt immigration reform.
There was just one little problem though. After six years of personal attacks against President Bush by his opposition, he no longer had the political capital and clout to persuade members of his own party to support new immigration legislation. Foiled again!
It’s weird how the war in Iraq has played a part in blocking immigration reform. It’s amazing how many checks and balances are built into the American political system.
Well done founding fathers.
Most Democrats, who also wanted immigration reform, spent the first six years of the Bush Presidency attacking the integrity, character, and public policies of President Bush. The political tactics of personal destruction succeeded against President Bush in the 2006 elections as a Democratic majority was elected to Congress. Finally, President Bush had a Congress that was willing to attempt immigration reform.
There was just one little problem though. After six years of personal attacks against President Bush by his opposition, he no longer had the political capital and clout to persuade members of his own party to support new immigration legislation. Foiled again!
It’s weird how the war in Iraq has played a part in blocking immigration reform. It’s amazing how many checks and balances are built into the American political system.
Well done founding fathers.
Labels:
Culture,
Immigration,
Politics
Friday, June 08, 2007
Cracks in American Politics
It’s probably better for America in the long run that the immigration bill has stalled in the Senate. Something needs to be done to address the problem of illegal immigration, but sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something when the something that you do has a good chance of making matters worse.
I don’t see any winners or heroes in the immigration debate. I believe President Bush was noble in his attempt to fix immigration, but I also think his primary argument was flawed. The reason there are jobs Americans won’t do is because there are employers who will not pay the price to have jobs done by legal American citizens.
I kept waiting for a spokesperson on either side of the debate to make compelling arguments for their side. I heard and read a few reasonable arguments on both sides, but I primarily heard and read appeals to emotion, with very few appeals to reason. Compassion for our fellow human beings has to be balanced by justice with long term expectations and consequences.
The debate over immigration has also exposed some real cracks in our political system. Congresspersons who base their political position on who donates the most money to their campaign, or which constituency shouts the loudest in opposition, or even which position is held by the majority of voters are not doing their job with honor. It’s not good for America when money, the vocal minority, or the tyranny of the majority determines public policy.
The job of a congressperson is to do what is right for America in the long run. For very good reasons, America was never intended to be a pure democracy. Citizens with core values, principles, and morals are supposed to elect representatives with similar values, principles, and morals and then the representatives are supposed to legislate based on these values, principles, and morals. When self interest is the primary value of those doing the electing, then self interest will be the primary value of those getting elected, and public policy will be based on individual selfish interests.
Is selfishness the legacy of the American experiment? Where are the American statesmen in the mold of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy? Where are the heroes? I have no doubt that many of our soldiers returning from Iraq will be the real leaders of the next generation. However, I worry that none of them will ever get elected.
I don’t see any winners or heroes in the immigration debate. I believe President Bush was noble in his attempt to fix immigration, but I also think his primary argument was flawed. The reason there are jobs Americans won’t do is because there are employers who will not pay the price to have jobs done by legal American citizens.
I kept waiting for a spokesperson on either side of the debate to make compelling arguments for their side. I heard and read a few reasonable arguments on both sides, but I primarily heard and read appeals to emotion, with very few appeals to reason. Compassion for our fellow human beings has to be balanced by justice with long term expectations and consequences.
The debate over immigration has also exposed some real cracks in our political system. Congresspersons who base their political position on who donates the most money to their campaign, or which constituency shouts the loudest in opposition, or even which position is held by the majority of voters are not doing their job with honor. It’s not good for America when money, the vocal minority, or the tyranny of the majority determines public policy.
The job of a congressperson is to do what is right for America in the long run. For very good reasons, America was never intended to be a pure democracy. Citizens with core values, principles, and morals are supposed to elect representatives with similar values, principles, and morals and then the representatives are supposed to legislate based on these values, principles, and morals. When self interest is the primary value of those doing the electing, then self interest will be the primary value of those getting elected, and public policy will be based on individual selfish interests.
Is selfishness the legacy of the American experiment? Where are the American statesmen in the mold of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy? Where are the heroes? I have no doubt that many of our soldiers returning from Iraq will be the real leaders of the next generation. However, I worry that none of them will ever get elected.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Deport them all?
I can understand why many American citizens would want to deport adults from other countries who as adults came to the United States illegally or stayed in the United States illegally. However, I don’t understand Christians who want to deport everyone who is in the United States illegally. What about all of the illegal immigrants who were brought illegally to the United States by their parents as a child?
Not all illegal immigrants are the same. Do we deport someone who is now 18 years old who was brought illegally to America as a 2 year old and who has no other home except America? What about a 20 year old who was brought as a 5 year old? A 25 year old with a college education and a job who was brought as a 10 year old? Don’t some compassionate and reasonable exceptions need to be made in deciding the fate of illegal immigrants? Does anyone have a good reason for deporting those who were forced to migrate illegally by their parents?
Not all illegal immigrants are the same. Do we deport someone who is now 18 years old who was brought illegally to America as a 2 year old and who has no other home except America? What about a 20 year old who was brought as a 5 year old? A 25 year old with a college education and a job who was brought as a 10 year old? Don’t some compassionate and reasonable exceptions need to be made in deciding the fate of illegal immigrants? Does anyone have a good reason for deporting those who were forced to migrate illegally by their parents?
Monday, May 21, 2007
Immigration Bill Thoughts
I am on record as favoring more legal immigration and favoring the enforcement of current immigration laws. Nothing is worse than the confusion that results from having laws that are rarely or ever enforced. The best system would be a fair system that is enforced with the rule of law. A less than fair system, which the United States currently has, that is enforced, is still preferable to any system that is not enforced because people will at least act on reasonable expectations.
I applaud our President and the Senate leaders for attempting to solve the illegal immigration problem and for making an effort to deal humanely with all of the illegal immigrants presently in the United States. There is plenty of room in the United States for more of every race, creed, and ethnicity to share in our blessings and opportunities.
However, I have three major misgivings with the current immigration compromise. Two involve class and one involves security.
Workers in the United States should only be tied to a specific job until they can find a better job or until their employment contract expires. Upward mobility allows the underclass to become the upper-class as workers gain knowledge, perfect their skills, manage their careers, and sometimes own their own enterprises.
I don’t see how temporary workers could ever be anything except a permanent underclass. The temporary designation is not as bad as slavery, but it is not freedom either if the temporary workers can not progress into a better class as they develop marketable skills. I don’t mind if someone wants to come to America and work and then return to their home country, but I do have a moral problem with forcing them to return after they have performed for a paycheck but before they have been able to develop and market their skills.
I also don’t see how allowing more visas for professionals and less visas for relatives of American citizens will do anything except limit the upward mobility of existing citizens and force more families to consider illegal options to attain reunification. Do we really need more Doctors, Lawyers, and Accountants pursuing six figure incomes or do we need more workers willing to roll up their sleeves and build more houses, roads, and schools and produce more food and home products at a lower cost? I vote for more houses, roads, and schools. I also vote for stronger families which means allowing citizens to assist their relatives in becoming Americans.
Lastly, I would like to see provisions in the immigration bill that have some serious screening provisions for Islamic radicals. There may come a time in America when we will be fighting terrorists on our own streets. If we can stop them before they get here, there will be a lot fewer Americans who become victims of terrorism.
An immigration bill that becomes law needs to represent the best of American morality and justice. We should be able to do better than the current compromise.
I applaud our President and the Senate leaders for attempting to solve the illegal immigration problem and for making an effort to deal humanely with all of the illegal immigrants presently in the United States. There is plenty of room in the United States for more of every race, creed, and ethnicity to share in our blessings and opportunities.
However, I have three major misgivings with the current immigration compromise. Two involve class and one involves security.
Workers in the United States should only be tied to a specific job until they can find a better job or until their employment contract expires. Upward mobility allows the underclass to become the upper-class as workers gain knowledge, perfect their skills, manage their careers, and sometimes own their own enterprises.
I don’t see how temporary workers could ever be anything except a permanent underclass. The temporary designation is not as bad as slavery, but it is not freedom either if the temporary workers can not progress into a better class as they develop marketable skills. I don’t mind if someone wants to come to America and work and then return to their home country, but I do have a moral problem with forcing them to return after they have performed for a paycheck but before they have been able to develop and market their skills.
I also don’t see how allowing more visas for professionals and less visas for relatives of American citizens will do anything except limit the upward mobility of existing citizens and force more families to consider illegal options to attain reunification. Do we really need more Doctors, Lawyers, and Accountants pursuing six figure incomes or do we need more workers willing to roll up their sleeves and build more houses, roads, and schools and produce more food and home products at a lower cost? I vote for more houses, roads, and schools. I also vote for stronger families which means allowing citizens to assist their relatives in becoming Americans.
Lastly, I would like to see provisions in the immigration bill that have some serious screening provisions for Islamic radicals. There may come a time in America when we will be fighting terrorists on our own streets. If we can stop them before they get here, there will be a lot fewer Americans who become victims of terrorism.
An immigration bill that becomes law needs to represent the best of American morality and justice. We should be able to do better than the current compromise.
Labels:
Culture,
Immigration,
Politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)