I always enjoy when Dr. Walter E. Williams guest hosts for Rush. He often refers to a discussion he had with a former senator. The discussion went like this:
Dr. Williams: "Senator, you know as well as I do that farm subsidies are wrong in that they distort farm markets and prices, and end up being a hand out that in many ways hurts farmers in the long run, AND essentially destroy tax payer money by incentivising unproductive behavior in farmers."
Senator Survivor: "Of course you are correct, but what do you expect me to do? If I don't support these subsidies, I'll be dead meat next election and I'll be replaced by someone who's worse than I am. If I don't compromise by supporting these subsidies, I won't be able to do any good at all."
Dr. Williams' point is: we can't expect politicians to behave in ways that will result in loss of their elected position. Thus, if we want government to no longer be the agent by which politicians take our tax dollars and auction them off to various constituencies in exchange for votes, we have to structurally reduce the power they hold. If they don't have the power to give our tax dollars (and the loans made against our future tax dollars) away, they won't; but if they can, we know they will. The caveat is - it is conceivable that we the people may become so suspect of politicians and their choices in government, that a generation of polticians might be created who believe they may only be re-elected if they are fiscally responsible and turn their backs on earmarks, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, etc. It is possible in theory ...
Ultimately, politicians survive only when they behave according to the Darwinian observation summed up as "survival of the fittest." Those who can't stand what they become, Dick Armey for example, will get out of the game.
Dr. Williams: "Senator, you know as well as I do that farm subsidies are wrong in that they distort farm markets and prices, and end up being a hand out that in many ways hurts farmers in the long run, AND essentially destroy tax payer money by incentivising unproductive behavior in farmers."
Senator Survivor: "Of course you are correct, but what do you expect me to do? If I don't support these subsidies, I'll be dead meat next election and I'll be replaced by someone who's worse than I am. If I don't compromise by supporting these subsidies, I won't be able to do any good at all."
Dr. Williams' point is: we can't expect politicians to behave in ways that will result in loss of their elected position. Thus, if we want government to no longer be the agent by which politicians take our tax dollars and auction them off to various constituencies in exchange for votes, we have to structurally reduce the power they hold. If they don't have the power to give our tax dollars (and the loans made against our future tax dollars) away, they won't; but if they can, we know they will. The caveat is - it is conceivable that we the people may become so suspect of politicians and their choices in government, that a generation of polticians might be created who believe they may only be re-elected if they are fiscally responsible and turn their backs on earmarks, the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, etc. It is possible in theory ...
Ultimately, politicians survive only when they behave according to the Darwinian observation summed up as "survival of the fittest." Those who can't stand what they become, Dick Armey for example, will get out of the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment