Joined
·
7,277 Posts
Doubts that the Tea Party can reduce government.
Sept. 14, 2010
http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/doubts-tea-party-can-reduce-government/
The public likes Social Security and Medicare and professional sports.
Corporations love government subsidies to renovate cities.
Heck, they’re lining up now to get the subsidies made available by the very “Obamacare” they howled about in protest.
Republicans howled about the stimulus bill, but across they nation they are cashing the checks the government sends for all sorts of projects.
Libertarians and Tea Partiers say they want to reduce the size of government, but would they really have the will if given the power ?
And would the public really support such efforts ?
It’s easy to talk in generalities during a campaign or rally, but it’s more difficult to translate glitter words into policy that the public will accept when they see its impact.
For example, the recent health insurance reform legislation is controversial, especially because of its mandate that individuals buy private health insurance.
But if opponents want to repeal this aspect of the bill, are they also prepared to repeal the existing federal mandate that requires hospitals and doctors to provide emergency care regardless of whether the patient has money or insurance ?
A principled effort to get government out of health care would end both mandates.
But a howl of protest would inevitably occur when a citizen without insurance comes to the hospital in crisis and dies in the waiting room.
No one likes paying for health care for illegal immigrants, but is the general public really willing to let non-citizens die, especially their children, by refusing emergency medical care ?
Of course, getting the government out of health care would also mean repealing Medicare, Medicaid and closing Veterans Administration hospitals, not to mention publicly supported hospitals such as Truman Medical Center.
Several Tea Party candidates have said they want to end or phase out Medicare, only to backtrack on those statements after they heard the reaction.
Let’s take an easier example of how to reduce taxes and get government out of our lives.
Why should the federal government give major league baseball an antitrust exemption that effectively creates a monopoly.
Why not repeal the antitrust exemption for major league baseball and let the marketplace rule ?
Let anyone who wants to field a team have the right to do so …at his or her own expense.
Such a move would stop the extortion that team owners now employ when they threaten to move a team unless a city builds a new stadium.
Getting the government out of the sports business would reduce the tax burden on the grandma who doesn’t give a darn about the infield fly rule.
This issue has very visible local implications.
Sorry to be a spoil sport after last night’s Chiefs game, and I should note here that I have had seasons tickets for many years and love sports.
But did you know that there are 231,000 square feet of VIP space in Arrowhead Stadium ?
Yes, 231,000 square feet.
The Chiefs actually boast about this in their public presentations.
But is building VIP space a good use of public money ?
Where was the Tea Party when the public was talked into passing a tax to pay for these stadium improvements ?
I was one of a handful of protesters at that time speaking at public forms about this issue, and I didn’t see the outrage then about this tax on the public that was primarily for the benefit of an industry that could and should succeed or fail on its own.
Getting government out of protecting wealthy team owners would save local taxpayers billions of dollars around the country, but no one, apparently, wants to tamper with professional sports.
If government support for wealthy athletes is a Yes, then why is overnment support for health care for the poor a No.
Onward.
If we want government out of our lives, why regulate strip clubs ?
If men want to pay young women to get naked, why should the government be involved ?
A Republican legislator proposed this recent Missouri legislation.
Of course, minor girls should be protected, but can’t adult women make their own decisions about where to work ?
Isn’t this an example of the nanny state the Tea Party should protest ?
But they are nowhere to be seen on this issue, admittedly a state and not a federal matter, but the principle remains.
Another example.
Republicans seem to like regulating moral conduct, such as strip clubs.
But Democrats like National Public Radio.
Shouldn’t public subsidies for NPR be abolished, allowing the marketplace to determine what stations survive ?
While we’re busy sacrificing sacred cows, let’s look at tax policy.
Government is meddling in our lives anytime it sets tax policy to influence economic activity.
The income tax deduction for home mortgage interest is an example of government efforts to encourage home ownership.
Shouldn’t it be eliminated ?
Why aren’t Tea Partiers, Republicans and Libertarians crying out for a repeal of this insane deduction ?
Because it primarily benefits the rich.
The interest on a modest home isn’t enough to exceed the standard tax deduction.
Is it because only borrowers with large loans really get much benefit from the tax break ?
Much ado has been made about government creating the housing bubble by facilitating loans for unqualified buyers, but the mortgage interest deduction also contributed to the recent financial crisis because it encouraged speculation and construction of McMansions and borrowing for same.
This tax policy also creates urban sprawl and high energy consumption to heat and cool and travel to and from homes in the burbs, furthering our dependence on foreign oil.
If the Tea Party really wants government out of our lives, their leaders should advocate the end the mortgage interest deduction and allow people to determine what kind of homes they want to buy without tax incentives.
Shouldn’t local government also stop giving property tax abatements for condos to entice people to move to urban renewal areas ?
If people want to live downtown, they’re free to go there without tax incentives that ultimately cause other people to pick up the slack in depleted tax coffers.
But business interests love tapping into government to fund their projects.
They call it economic development.
But it’s really just corporate welfare without the outrage.
Here’s one of my favorite examples of government being involved in activities that would surely make the Founding Fathers blush.
Why in the world is government a participant in the gambling business.
Government, of course, conducts lotteries as a way of raising revenue.
But is this the proper role of government ?
And why should government set limits on how much you can lose gambling at the riverboat casino.
If people gamble away their homes, should government try to protect them from their foolishness?
More nanny state?
Where are the protesters?
I’m on a roll, so why stop now.
Why should government license medical doctors.
Shouldn’t people be allowed to get medical treatment from the doctor of their choosing ?
Let the public inspect the doctor’s medical credentials and decide who is and who isn’t competent.
Opthamologist Dr. Rand Paul, supported by the Tea Party, probably wouldn’t like this idea.
So Glen Beck can have a rally to Restore Honor to our country.
But what does this mean?
He’s smart enough to know that he can’t run for office on these glitter words alone and that as soon as he proposes a policy, the conflicts begin.
The public likes Social Security and Medicare and professional sports.
Corporations love government subsidies to renovate cities.
Heck, they’re lining up now to get the subsidies made available by the very “Obamacare” they howled about in protest.
Republicans howled about the stimulus bill, but across they nation they are cashing the checks the government sends for all sorts of projects.
Hypocrits ? Realists ?
Well, you decide.
But regardless of the outcome of the November election, I’m betting that government won’t get smaller anytime soon.
We all have our principles … as long as they apply to others.
