FoxPolitics.net - Appleton, WI News - What's really going on in the Fox Cities

FoxPolitics.net Blogs

FoxPolitics News

Local/State Govt Links

Salaries

• Appleton School District, 2007-08
• City of Appleton
• Town of Grand Chute
• City of Menasha
• City of Neenah

Candidates

City of Appleton

• Elected Officials
• Salary Watch
• Directory
• Mtg. Agendas/Minutes

Advisory Board

Blogroll

Selected News Sources:
Business Jrnl of Milw
Christian Science Monitor
Daily Caller
Drudge Report
La Crosse Tribune
Milw Journal Sentinel
National Journal
New York Times
Public Policy Forum
Real Clear Politics
Stateline
The Hill
TPM
Washington Examiner
Washington Post
Washington Times
WI State Journal
Selected Blogs - from the Right:
American Mind
Blaska's Blog
Boots & Sabers
Charlie Sykes
Dad29
Freedom Eden
Heritage Foundation
Jerry Bader Blog
Life Voice
Marketplace of Ideas
Marquette Warrior
Natl Review Online
No Runny Eggs
Patrick McIlheran
Real Debate Wisconson
RedState
Rhymes with Clown
Shark and Shepherd
The Lote Tree
Vox Populi
Wall Street Jrnl, Opinions
WI State Jrnl, Opinion
Wigderson Library & Pub
Wisconsin Family Voice
WPRI
Selected Blogs - from the Left:
Big Money Blog
Blogging Blue
Brenda Konkel
Caffeinated Politics
Capital Times
FightingBob
Folkbum's rambles
Griper Blade
Huffington Post
Lost Albatross
MAL Contends
Mid coast views
Moneyed Politicians
One Wisconsin Now
Open Left
Playground Politics
Political Environment
Rock Netroots
Talk to Tony
Uppity Wisconsin
Waxing America

Today's Blog: Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie
My husband and I and a couple hundred friends watched in Green Bay as ...(more)

Search Archives

Blogs

Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie (6/28/2011)

Time for Gov. Walker to talk more about the cake (3/4/2011)

Today, reality hits home (3/1/2011)

FoxPolitics News going on hiatus (1/28/2011)

Brown County Executive candidate forum Feb. 8 (1/28/2011)

Education done right (1/27/2011)

To Obama, the ‘We’ is Government (1/27/2011)

(more)

1/27/2009
We like it when people give us stuff

The nearly-trillion-dollar "stimulus" bill, currently being rammed through Congress, is a very, very good idea.

No, not just a good idea. A great idea, which will – without a doubt – achieve its purpose. The next question being: what, exactly is its purpose?

All signs indicate this monster is going to be wasteful (whenever government rushes to deal with a “crisis,” there’s simply no time to waste worrying over accountability). It’s filled up with stuff that has nothing to do with economic stimulus. It’ll create a higher spending baseline.

So seriously, call your congressman. Today - because all signs say the house is voting Wednesday.

Yeah - this bill is going to be political. As Glenn "Insty" Reynolds put it: “This is not so much a stimulus, as a massive transfer of wealth from the politically unconnected to the politically connected.”

Ah, but he’s wrong: it is a stimulus bill. Thing is, it's not intended to stimulate the economy, so much as to stimulate the political positions of certain Congressmen.

And…what, we’re surprised? A trillion-dollar spending spree is, almost by definition, going to be so chock-full of pet projects, pork, and political payback that we may as well just shrug our shoulders and laugh: Congressmen will be Congressmen, after all.

Because we know it, see. We know, and they know, and the newspapers know, and the people who are going to get the money know: this thing is put together to benefit the people who put it together.

And we throw our hands into the air and curse cruel fate. How can they do this? Can't they see how ridiculous it is?

No, they can’t, because it’s not ridiculous. Not from their point of view. From their point of view, this is all entirely rational. See, they stand to gain from handing out goodies. They gain from spending our money. More than that, they stand to lose by not doing so.

For example, note the angry reaction aimed at Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker after he “refused” to accept federal stimulus money. And he hadn’t even refused it! He just wanted some ground rules to make sure accepting the money didn’t commit his county to more than they were willing to do.

But if he had simply refused the money …well, are you angry that the neighbor down the block didn't bring you a birthday present last year? Of course not. Why should he have?

But if he had, you’d be more inclined to think well of him. Wouldn’t you? You’d be more inclined to do him a favor. To pick up the piece of trash in his yard while you’re walking by. You wouldn’t have thought any less of him for not bringing you a present, but giving you stuff makes you like him more.

That’s how it works. We like it when people give us stuff. We like it so much, we pretend not to notice how somebody, somewhere, has to pay for it.

Which brings us to where we are now: Congress using a period of financial unpleasantness to ram through a stimulus bill packed with goodies that really have very little to do with stimulating the economy.

And we can’t stop them. Well, we can, but we won’t. Too many of us are getting the stuff, or hope to. So we give them the power to tax, and to spend money satisfying narrow, specific, even individual desires. They have the power, and using it helps them keep the power. So they’re going to use it, no matter how ridiculous it looks to the rest of us.

We could take the power away, of course, but…how would we get along, without Congress to give us what we need?

Lance Burri is a contributor to the Badger Blog Alliance

COMMENTS

So why, exactly, are we to be outraged THIS time?

I ask that question in all honesty. Is it because it's another example of government transferring wealth? If so, why did a Republican President orchestrate the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of our nation? My money (and believe me - there isn't a lot of it) is going to fund the lavish offices of CEOs at corporate giants who make more in one day than I'll make in my lifetime. Sorry, I simply call that wrong. I (as a fiscal conservative who was betrayed by his party) don't see how this round of spending is any different than the last.

Republicans and Democrats - not a spit of difference. Neither party gets it.

Are we to be outraged because we're going back to the days of funding artists who crap on the flag? Are we to be outraged because we'll be paying for abortions? We should be, but I think the REAL reason Republicans in Washington are outraged this time is that the money isn't going to the big-wigs who supported Republican candidates.

Sorry - I don't buy in to this false pretense from the privileged who are getting their nose pushed down a little while watching their "piece of the pie" go to others of lesser pedigree. I don't like the spending of my tax dollars for vulgar art or immoral behavior ... but I CAN see investing in a better energy infrastructure, better roads, and assisting the little guy in getting a business started. Some expenditures can be legitimized, but I doubt we'll see real practical solutions without all the pork.

Bottom line - the elephant died right around the time W. started listening to Hanky P. and Turbo-Tax Tim. It's time for those who are serious about fiscal conservatism to find a new home and get really serious about electing those who will follow through on their promises.

Until then - Washington is simply the place where more than half my money will go and others will use it to endow their closest friends regardless of the phone calls we make or the letters we write.

Jeff Riedl (Tue Jan 27 09:41:46 2009)

Turbo-Tax Tim. That's really funny.
Think solutions Jeff. I understand it's cathartic and I suppose stress-reliving to rail against past mistakes. Futile as it may seem (surely seems that way to me sometimes), we've got to continue to fight against our loss of freedoms and loss of good ol' dollars to all levels of government. How would you suggest we fight the encroachment?

Jo (Tue Jan 27 09:54:53)

Methinks I smell excessive partisanship. And it bears a certain resemblance to eau de skunk.

The same folks who coined the phrase "Sore Loserman" a few years ago now seem to be balking at a dose of their own medicine.

Locally, it's a symptom of what Marc Eisen described in the latest issue of Milwaukee Magazine, in which he suggests that excessive partisanship is poisoning the well of good policy in Wisconsin.

"Ronald Reagan’s 'big tent' Republicanism has long been supplanted by a socially conservative, ideologically purist conservatism that disdains moderates," Eisen wrote. "Assembly Democrats ... have happily filled the void with moderate candidates and won the swing districts. But it’s too early to tell how that will influence policy-making."

Like Eisen and his sources, I remember when what was known as the consensus process was alive and well in Wisconsin government.

Guided by Mary Lou Munts, it resulted in landmark, bipartisan marital-property and groundwater-management legislation, and an atmosphere of cooperation at the Capitol.

Today people who try to accomplish things through consensus throw up their hands in frustration, victims of a bunker mentality that doesn't serve the public interest.

Rich Eggleston (Tue Jan 27 12:50:22 2009)

Jo -

You're right, that was a huge 'vent' but I truly don't see solutions with the current options available.

Republicans have proven they don't have the spine or the moral compass to follow through on the promises that they have made and the sales pitch they have presented for the past 20 years.

We need to get back to the Constitution. We need representatives who believe in the freedoms we're supposed to have and are willing to exercise the level of restraint which will keep them out of our way REGARDLESS of the 'impending storm'. Some companies fail - tough. Some companies succeed - yeah! If you want the benefit, take the very real risk otherwise the whole process is pointless.

Should those who are disadvantaged be helped - absolutely. WE should help them ... NOT Washington. Should those who have been wronged be made whole - without question... there's already a process in place for that. Preventive 'nursing' is not the answer.

Let's start with a Fair Tax and electing true Constitutionalists. After having a chance to live the life that Republicans promised but failed to deliver, then we can see what the nation's appetite might be for getting back to basics rather than throwing all our money in to 61.4 square miles along the eastern seaboard and hoping for the best.

Jeff Riedl (Tue Jan 27 11:54:16 2009)

Jeff, what do you think of what Alex Lundry says in this article?

Jo (Tue Jan 27 12:05:13)

It is well researched and thoughtfully assembled, but I disagree with the premise that we should govern by politics rather than by policy.

There are times when an conservative point of view "appears" cold. I'm well aware of that - it cost me one of the best jobs I ever had, but standing on one's principles when the going gets tough is the right thing to do.

Running from one's convictions for the sake of looking like you're being nice is what is losing the Republican party their support from the right. Trying to placate those who will likely 'sway with the breeze' anyway is NOT what I want in a representative. If I vote for a representative who says they don't believe in bigger government, then I don't want them to 'fold' because this form of bigger government happens to be wrapped in a diaper.

We both know the truth - LESS government is the only genuine form of compassionate government, regardless of appearances. You and I can help our neighbor better than some paper shuffler (mouse clicker) in D.C. The appearance of being uncaring or cold by failing to throw money at a problem is only an issue because some who want centralized control of everything have done a masterful job of portraying it as such.

But then again - less government means LESS government. Fewer handouts in social programs AND fewer handouts to corporate interests. It cuts both ways. A transfer of wealth is a transfer of wealth and it's wrong no matter which way the money is going.

Jeff Riedl (Tue Jan 27 13:07:21 2009)

Absolutely, Jeff...I believe the ONLY way to try to change what's been going on, is to talk to people (as many, and as often as possible), to try to get them to see principles.

For example, every chance I get, I point out the similarities between Obama (AND Bush) and Hitler. (E.g. national service, civilian security force) People don't like hearing it, but they must. Unfortunately, most folks like to stick their heads in the sand.

emily matthews (Tue Jan 27 15:37:26 2009)

Jeff, it seems to me that you and I agree. Rich, I think the partisanship you smell is coming from you. I never mentioned a party, nor any name of any Congressman, much less President. I talked about a culture in which we allow our government to spend money benefiting themselves by giving things to us. It is a broad and non-partisan problem. Yet, you saw partisanship.

Lance Burri (Tue Jan 27 15:55:24 2009)

Post a Reply

Print this Article

Email Article to a Friend