There's an op ed in today's Seattle Times from someone who reminds me of the basis for the phrase "those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."
In his effort, James Gregory, professor of history and director of some center or another at a leftist think tank at the UW, provides yet another socialist view, entitled: "As Olympia wrestles with a budget crisis, can it avoid the mistakes of 1931?" He brilliantly manages to show a moronic understanding of both the economy and government.
His money quotes?
"When the private sector stalls, government needs to step in."
It all depends on what you mean by "step in."
If, by stepping in, he meant "eliminate the business and occupation tax," then we have agreement. If he meant "eliminate and/or streamline regulations," then we have agreement. If he meant "increase targeted tax breaks and reductions designed to foster business expansion and provide an atmosphere of business-friendly government," then, as they say, we could do business.
Why is it that I don't think he meant any of those things?
He goes on to blather:
"It needs to spend money and increase employment in ways that might seem reckless in normal times."
Let me restate: there needs to be a MASSIVE income redistribution that makes no sense at ANY time so we can put together more rock-painting jobs for the unions.
Professor, here's a bulletin:
NO economy has EVER taxed itself into prosperity. EVER. and now is no exception. We are facing a $6 billion (so far) state budget deficit. When you divide the population of this state into that number; how much for each man, woman and child will it cost just to balance the budget, let alone expand union jobs, like the good professor is actually advocating?
Let's see.... $6 Billion dollars divided by around 6 million people equals.... what: $1000.
Each. That's $4000 for my family alone, just in budget deficits. And you would advocate increasing taxes in the face of a downward economy?
Bull. Here's a clue: Government at every level must share the pain. No tax increases. Layoff's of nonessential services (practically anything not involving public safety and education) and austerity at every level.
"They talked about big public-works projects in 1931 and they passed an income tax to pay for it. But Gov. Roland Hartley vetoed both."
Has he should have. Gov. Hartley must have been a courageous man to withstand the nonsense from those sharing the professor's peculiar viewpoint.
The professor goes on: "The governor said he needed to follow the law, enforce a balanced budget and protect taxpayers."
WOW!!!!! Where can we find someone like that NOW????
"As a result, state spending declined in 1931. Seattle officials followed suit, laying off city workers instead of expanding employment."
Which is, of course, absolutely the right thing to do again. There's something bizarre about these share-the-wealth types. NO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE IS "OWED" A JOB.
He then cluelessly goes on: Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Legislature are on track to repeat the mistakes of 1931. Committed to balancing the state budget as required by current law, the governor has already ordered state agencies to cut more than $590 million and is proposing to slash another $5 billion to $6 billion in the next budget cycle.
That is PRECISELY and ABSOLUTELY what she and the Legislature must do. Clearly, the position the good professor is advocating again would require massive tax increases that would devastate the economy and make his scenario look like an 8-killed-in-the-intersection truck wreck.
He continues on over the cliff: It will take ingenuity and courage to avoid the missteps of 1931. Balanced-budget laws are important in normal times, perhaps even in times of normal recessions. But this is a crisis that requires more flexibility.
It seems to me that he might be advocating running our budget at a deficit, an state constitutional impossibility. "Ingenuity and courage" is code speak for "raisie taxes through the roof, which would cripple our economy much more than the loss of 20,000 jobs he claims would be "destroyed."
"The governor and the Legislature must find a way to keep from escalating the job losses. They must find a way to avoid massive layoffs of state workers."
And this is where the pinhead title comes in:
The good professor provides ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO ACHIEVE THIS. No strategies, no ideas, no plan and no clue... except to hammer us with massive tax increases.
These people work for US. They know how to elbow their way to the trough when things are good... they need to understand that when things are bad, THEY will take the faceshot before we do.
Any idiot can point out the problem. Where it matters is to provide the solutions. And this monumental whining and sniveling along with advocating the Obamian Income Redistribution at the state level that we have to look forward to at the national level, ain't that.
We have a SIX BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. "Massive layoffs" of a bloated and "paid off" government employee sector is the risk THEY run for being government employees in the first place.
To tell the legislature what they "must" do without offering up any way to achieve that goal is less than worthless; it's a waste of space, time and energy.
"They must avoid devastating cuts to higher education and needed programs and services."
To a leftist-socialist-unioner, EVERY government program is a "needed program and service." That's a crock, of course, but as usual, unionists only think about themselves while they screw the rest of us (Look up "prevailing wage.")
Here's ANOTHER clue, Binky: we're in a DEVASTATED ECONOMY. Why is it that in your world, only government workers shouldn't be hurt by this economy, while you would bend the rest of us over to pay for them or in the alternative, break our laws by passing an unbalanced budget?
"They must find a way to act with common sense in the next legislative session."
It seems to me that what's planned for now is entirely commonsensical AND responsible.
In fact, here's you last clue, professor: Government works for US; not the other way around. When the cash is flowing in, government union pigs whine and snivel about how overworked, underpaid and put upon they are. Well, no one makes anyone work for the government.
That you would suggest that common sense will be absent unless they follow your vague, non-specific and utterly worthless worldview gives you the "pinhead" title of the day is your ability to write so much... while saying so very little.
Hopefully, one of the many jobs that need to be cut out of the absurdly expensive and dramatically overpaid higher ed personnel budget is yours.
"To do otherwise would be inexcusable."
Just like you keeping your job would be "inexcusable?"
It's frightening that you're an actual professor at my school.
Comments (4) E-mail article Print view
As Olympia wrestles with a budget crisis, can it avoid the mistakes of 1931?
Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Legislature are on track to repeat the mistakes of 1931. Balanced budget laws are important in normal times, perhaps even in times of normal recessions. But this is a crisis that requires more flexibility.
By James N. Gregory
Special to The Times
PREV of NEXT 
SEVENTY-EIGHT years ago this month, the nation began to realize that the stock market decline and economic weakness that had begun a year earlier had turned into a desperate situation. Unemployment surged in the fall of 1930, banks began to fail, people were losing their homes, and policymakers sensed that a crisis was at hand.
The Legislature that convened in Olympia in January 1931 was dominated by representatives who knew that they had to create jobs to help the state pull out of the downward economic spiral. Most understood on a basic level what economists today call the "countercyclical" responsibility of governments.
When the private sector stalls, government needs to step in. It needs to spend money and increase employment in ways that might seem reckless in normal times. They talked about big public-works projects in 1931 and they passed an income tax to pay for it. But Gov. Roland Hartley vetoed both.
The governor said he needed to follow the law, enforce a balanced budget and protect taxpayers. As a result, state spending declined in 1931.
Seattle officials followed suit, laying off city workers instead of expanding employment.
Yadda, yadda, yadda...
.
No comments:
Post a Comment