September 2, 2016 at 3:52 p.m.
I promise to do absolutely nothing
I promise to do absolutely nothing
He's not perfect because he wants to do too much, and every time politicians promise to do something, it's a sure bet we're going to get more government, more regulation, less freedom, and less prosperity.
That's true with Democrats; that's true with Republicans; and it's probably true with Trump.
Let's be clear: The perfect candidate would be the man or woman who stands up, looks us in the eyes, and boldly says: "If elected, I promise to do absolutely nothing. Read my lips: Absolutely nothing!"
That candidate would have our vote in a heartbeat.
Oh sure, we realize that sometimes politicians have to do something. Sometimes they must act simply to undo all the bad things they've done to us before.
It's funny, though, how the system works. When politicians promise to fix bad things, somehow the bad things never get fixed but their actions take more of our money and more of our freedom.
Take the War on Poverty. We've been fighting that war since 1965 and we have just as many poor people today as then, maybe more. The only thing that has become prosperous is the federal bureaucracy fighting poverty.
All totaled, some 92 federal programs - again, maybe more - are designed to fight poverty. There are 28 education and job-training programs, 17 food-aid programs, and 22 housing programs.
In 2012 alone, according to Rep. Paul Ryan's office, the government spent $799 billion on these programs. About $220 billion was shelled out in cold hard cash.
Really? We spent $799 billion - $220 billion in cash - and we still hear stories of people suffering? If we don't cast doubt on the stories, then we have to ask, where did the money go? What was it spent for?
And now, Hillary Clinton is promising to do even more if she is elected. She says she's going to make housing more affordable, so we take that to mean a 23rd housing program would be on its way.
She also says she's going increase access to early childhood education and expand the child tax credit. Translation: More money from the middle class, or what's left of it, more money to the government, and not a hint of a dent in poverty.
Oh well.
It's not just the federal government that's great at taking actions that never solve the intended problem but have other negative consequences. State governments have also mastered the art of targeting an issue that is funded in perpetuity and yet somehow is never solved.
In Wisconsin, the equivalent of the War on Poverty has been our state's brave War Against the Lack of Broadband.
That's right, rural Wisconsin doesn't have enough broadband, and so for 20 years or more we have seen a continuous river of press releases announcing all sorts of grants, tax credits, and other funding to expand broadband access.
Democrats do it; Republicans do it. They're like the birds and the bees.
In this year's elections, politicians across the state are once again promising to fund expanded broadband, which they say has been so neglected. But what about 2010, when Gov. Jim Doyle announced in this headline, "$29 million to go to expanded broadband."
Oh, and what about 2007, when Doyle "announced $7.5 million in sales tax exemptions and tax credits for businesses to expand broadband access." In 2002, here's Doyle again: "Governor Jim Doyle today announced an $8.8-million investment to expand broadband."
And on and on it has gone. You'd think by now we'd have broadband. Yet we never get it.
And so, as with poverty, and assuming the stories about lack of broadband access are accurate, where has all that money gone? (Here's an educated guess: It goes to telecommunications companies, aka special interests, who pocket the money and never provide the broadband.)
Here's another trick we notice that politicians do. They "study" and recommend "actions" that would have absolutely no effect on the studied problem but would undermine other statutes so as to benefit special interests.
For example, in today's edition, we report on an Assembly task force that "studied" how to get our youth better ready for the work force.
Truth is, we didn't need a task force to tell us how to do that. The answer is simple: Get government out of the way so schools and parents and local communities can fashion and offer the education choices they need and want for their children.
Not surprisingly, that wasn't one of the task force's recommendations. Instead they want all sorts of government baloney, such as "implementing a clearinghouse for technical education curricula."
That's all linguistic nonsense, pretty words politicians like to use when they don't have anything substantive to say, which is pretty much all the time. Anytime a politician uses the words 'stakeholder' or 'clearinghouse,' open the window so the blowing smoke can escape. If they use them together in a sentence, you're going to need a foghorn.
But then there was this nugget tucked away in the task force's recommendations, which, by the way, seemed curiously to come only from the chairman of the task force, not its members: "Consider providing an exception to general local levy limits for the purchase of equipment used in technical education programs."
Ah ha! There you have the real goal of the task force. They know their recommendations, if adopted as actions, would have not one iota of effect on work force readiness, but it would give school administrations one more way to evade levy limits and to avoid accountability.
It reminds us of that loopy scheme, being used now in the Northwoods and across the state, that allows schools to exceed revenue limits for "energy efficient" renovations.
The latest recommendation would just provide another loophole in school revenue limits, and that's what this task force was all about. It's why no one trusts any politician to do anything.
So please, give us a candidate who will promise to do absolutely nothing for his or her entire term. How refreshing that would be.
As for lawmakers already out there, please, please, stop trying to save us by killing us.
Comments:
You must login to comment.