All the government we can afford Share This:





The saving re: drugs would include a significant reduction of the prison/police system and alleviation within the courts. The savings re: universities would include the cutting of all staff and hugely-expensive contractors who facilitate PC programs, the reduction of ruinous lawsuits and legal procedures. The cost of persecuting people for victimiless crimes and of imposing the 'proper' cultural attitude upon peaceful people is enormous.



You won't hear of the savings that are possible -- nay! easy to achieve -- by axing politically-correct and otherwise morality-driven laws. Instead... non-services that actively harm you and society.



But, as I said, you won't hear of the savings possible by cutting non-essential non-services because too many phoney-baloney jobs in government depend on them. The people who enforce vicitimless crimes and PC policies are vampires intent on draining society of its life-blood a/k/a productivity. It is folly to argue economics with a vampire because its interests are antagonistic to your own. Your blood (or money) is the lifespring for both of you. If the vampire respects what is yours, it will starve to death. Its self-interest is to find the point at which it can feed richly today and, yet, leave you functioning so as to produce its sustenance for tomorrow. That's the point at which the vampire declares "success!"



I had hoped for a silver lining to the economic depression that is nigh. I'd hoped to see a cutback to the amount of government we could afford, which would be a helluva lot less government than what we have now. Many counter-examples argue against this hope. For example, the Eastern Bloc nations imposed vast totalitarian governments on comparatively poor societies; the governments there sucked down so much of society's blood that they became unsuccessful parasites. Society began to crumble and the "host" either died or revolted and threw the parasite off, which is de facto the same thing vis-a-vis the parasite. And, yet, in other nations governments have understood their own self-interest in such a manner as to cut back on totalitarianism in order to spur prosperity; China ia a recent example.



In the news, I can find evidence to support a swing in either direction for the United States: a cutback in government v. the continuing trend into totalitarianism. Arguing for the cutback theory are news items like the following:



Their budgets in crisis, governors, legislators and prison officials across the nation are making or considering policy changes that will likely remove tens of thousands of offenders from prisons and parole supervision. Collectively, the pending and proposed initiatives could add up to one of biggest shifts ever in corrections policy, putting into place cost-saving reforms that have struggled to win political support in the tough-on-crime climate of recent decades....



In California, faced with a projected $42 billion deficit and prison overcrowding that has triggered a federal lawsuit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to eliminate parole for all offenders not convicted of violent or sex-related crimes, reducing the parole population by about 70,000.



Nevertheless, the counter-evidence (that the U.S. is plunging into ever expanding, ever more totalitarian government) is compelling. The death knell will be Obama's bailing out of states in crisis and even of individual cities.



The UPI reports



With U.S. President-elect Barack Obama promising to "help struggling states avoid harmful budget cuts," Congress has discussed funneling $200 billion to states. Democratic governors from New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Massachusetts and Wisconsin have asked for $1 trillion over two years, while Republican South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he opposes a federal bailout of state budgets. "If Washington will wave a magic wand and bail you out, the obvious answer in politics is to avoid decisions you don't want to make," Sanford told USA Today.



Of the cities, The



[Note: as a parting irony... When the states and cities cry out for a great bite of tax dollars, they use the kidney-machine gambit. When they are actually forced to confront fiscal limits, they quietly do cut back on non-essential non-services...like the imprisonment of peaceful human beings.] Back to category overview Back to news overview Older News Newer News



when tax cuts of budget crises loom -- politicians use what has been aptly called "the kidney-machine" gambit. What's this? People will die because the first thing we must cut are kidney-machines at YOUR local hospital! Small children will starve because food assistance to families will have to be slashed. In short, the "kidney-machine gambit" declares that any cut will happen first to essential services. Meanwhile, politicians vote themselves raises to their already outrageous salaries; incarcerate peaceful human beings in an incredibly expensive and brutal penal system; drain society of its productivity by heaping on PC requirements, like anti-discrimination and sexual-sensitivity... In short, they are making you pay through the nose for-services that actively harm you and society.But, as I said, you won't hear of the savings possible by cutting non-essential non-services because too many phoney-baloney jobs in government depend on them. The people who enforce vicitimless crimes and PC policies are vampires intent on draining society of its life-blood a/k/a productivity. It is folly to argue economics with a vampire because its interests are antagonistic to your own. Your blood (or money) is the lifespring forof you. If the vampire respects what is yours, it will starve to death. Its self-interest is to find the point at which it can feed richly today and, yet, leave you functioning so as to produce its sustenance for tomorrow. That's the point at which the vampire declares "success!"I had hoped for a silver lining to the economic depression that is nigh. I'd hoped to see a cutback to the amount of government we could afford, which would be a helluva lot less government than what we have now. Many counter-examples argue against this hope. For example, the Eastern Bloc nations imposed vast totalitarian governments on comparatively poor societies; the governments there sucked down so much of society's blood that they became unsuccessful parasites. Society began to crumble and the "host" either died or revolted and threw the parasite off, which is de facto the same thing vis-a-vis the parasite. And, yet, in other nations governments have understood their own self-interest in such a manner as to cut back on totalitarianism in order to spur prosperity; China ia a recent example.In the news, I can find evidence to support a swing in either direction for the United States: a cutback in government v. the continuing trend into totalitarianism. Arguing for the cutback theory are news items like the following: MSNBC reports that sanity/humanity may be creeping into the prison system for no other reason than the current insanity is too expensive,Nevertheless, the counter-evidence (that the U.S. is plunging into ever expanding, ever more totalitarian government) is compelling. The death knell will be Obama's bailing out of states in crisis and even of individual cities.The UPI reports "States facing $80B in budget deficits" Of the cities, The Philadelphia Daily News assures us, "Cities won't be forgotten by Obama." If true, then the best hope for an increase in freedom is thereby quashed. Government on the federal, state and immediate levels are freed from the financial constraints that would reduce their ability to oppress you. There will be no pleasant end to the amount of government you can afford.[Note: as a parting irony... When the states and cities cry out for a great bite of tax dollars, they use the kidney-machine gambit. When they are actually forced to confront fiscal limits, they quietly do cut back on non-essential non-services...like the imprisonment of peaceful human beings.] Printer Friendly Wendy McElroy - Saturday 17 January 2009 - 16:36:05 - Permalink A significant step toward eliminating the budget crisis in most states -- especially ones like California -- would be to decriminalize marijuana and immediately release all people imprisoned for related 'crimes'. (Even better, of course, would be to decriminalize all drugs.) A significant step toward driving down the cost of college tuition would be to eliminate all legal requirement for sexual harassment/diversity training, all affirmative action related policies and offices...everything that is politically rather than educationally driven.The saving re: drugs would include a significant reduction of the prison/police system and alleviation within the courts. The savings re: universities would include the cutting of all staff and hugely-expensive contractors who facilitate PC programs, the reduction of ruinous lawsuits and legal procedures. The cost of persecuting people for victimiless crimes and of imposing the 'proper' cultural attitude upon peaceful people is enormous.You won't hear of the savings that are possible -- nay! easy to achieve -- by axing politically-correct and otherwise morality-driven laws. Instead...