Spring Break
Spending and regulation is not the way to help the economy
Caleb Thornton
Issue date: 2/26/09 Section: Opinion
I have to admit it -- the guy can give a good speech.
As I sat and watched the President's address to Congress and the nation on Tuesday night, those were the words that kept buzzing through my head. I caught myself agreeing with the President on several occasions and by the time it was over, I even found that the speech left me feeling nice, warm and fuzzy inside.
That is, until I came back to my senses and I realized that at the basis of his economic recovery plans, the President's proposals meant more government spending and more government regulation, a.k.a. the same-old Democratic Party mantra.
You see, conservatives like myself tend to follow the notion that while government spending and regulation do hold a place in our society and the economy, when it comes to either one, less is more.
Honestly, the logic I use to get to this point is pretty simple.
I believe that free market capitalism based on reward, risk, incentives, success and even failure is the greatest economic system this world has known, bringing prosperity and the chance for a better life to people like you and me who would have no chance under any other system.
My guess is that even most mainstream liberals would agree with that idea, but it's the government's role in that economy where we fundamentally differ.
I argue that while the government does have some responsibility to regulate the extremes that can result from capitalism and to provide for other basic needs within society -- such as transportation, national defense and law enforcement -- more often than not government intervention into the free market and unleashed government spending will have a detrimental effect on the economy and the nation as a whole.
You see the problem is that when the government forces itself into the private economy, it ends up messing with the fundamentals that capitalism is based on.
Take, for example, the President's plan to raise taxes on the top 2 percent of income earners in the U.S.
As I sat and watched the President's address to Congress and the nation on Tuesday night, those were the words that kept buzzing through my head. I caught myself agreeing with the President on several occasions and by the time it was over, I even found that the speech left me feeling nice, warm and fuzzy inside.
That is, until I came back to my senses and I realized that at the basis of his economic recovery plans, the President's proposals meant more government spending and more government regulation, a.k.a. the same-old Democratic Party mantra.
You see, conservatives like myself tend to follow the notion that while government spending and regulation do hold a place in our society and the economy, when it comes to either one, less is more.
Honestly, the logic I use to get to this point is pretty simple.
I believe that free market capitalism based on reward, risk, incentives, success and even failure is the greatest economic system this world has known, bringing prosperity and the chance for a better life to people like you and me who would have no chance under any other system.
My guess is that even most mainstream liberals would agree with that idea, but it's the government's role in that economy where we fundamentally differ.
I argue that while the government does have some responsibility to regulate the extremes that can result from capitalism and to provide for other basic needs within society -- such as transportation, national defense and law enforcement -- more often than not government intervention into the free market and unleashed government spending will have a detrimental effect on the economy and the nation as a whole.
You see the problem is that when the government forces itself into the private economy, it ends up messing with the fundamentals that capitalism is based on.
Take, for example, the President's plan to raise taxes on the top 2 percent of income earners in the U.S.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 7
jimmy
posted 2/26/09 @ 7:41 AM MST
Policy of the laissez-faire George W. Bush...
At the same time Congress has poured billions of dollars into banks, car companies and insurance companies whose business practices have ended in collapse (aided in some cases by government imposed regulations -- see Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) essentially rewarding failure. (Continued…)
MoralMoney
posted 2/26/09 @ 9:49 AM MST
Yes. Ok Collegian. We get it. You're all a bunch of free market poster boys who will claim graduate students are economics professors when there are none to support your view. (Continued…)
MoralMoney
posted 2/28/09 @ 4:53 PM MST
Hey Arvensis! Sorry I didn't get back to your last post. I can't find the story anymore. And this isn't Steven. Although, I saw that letter to and thought you might think that. (Continued…)
Post a Comment