The Ants On the Hill

It is easy for us on the right to pick and choose elements of the Liberal’s agenda and ridicule them individually. However, if you look at their agenda en mass the picture becomes clear, at least to me. The stark difference between Liberals and Conservatives is what the role of government should be.

Take a look at this headline:

Obama pitches $1B climate change 'resilience fund' by Laura Barron-Lopez at The Hill

Initially I was going to write a gripping post bitching about yet another waste of taxpayer dollars on some cause that I personally don’t agree with. Then it occurred to me, would I be just as pissed if it was me that directly benefited for government largess?   This thought led me to the (re) realization that the problem is not where the government spends taxpayer dollars - it’s that they are in a position to spend taxpayer dollars at all.

When I lived in Florida I found that if you leave just one measly crumb out on the counter, by morning ants would have somehow found find it. And God forbid if you were to leave a heap of dirty dishes in the sink, because, by the next morning thousands of the little buggers would be all over the kitchen. The point is that where there is food there would soon be ants. The same can be said of our federal government except instead of food, the bait is tax dollars. And it’s not ants it’s the rent-seekers and lobbyist and con artist in the guise of politicians who vie for those dollars.

Each year Americans send over two and a half trillion dollars to Washington. And even that’s not enough to quench their thirst for money so the federal government borrows yet another trillion or so from the Chinese. Now when you have that much money in one place there is no way any self-respecting lobbyist/rent-seeker/politician can resist. I mean is their job, right, it’s what they do. So each year the ants on Capitol Hill begin the feeding frenzy to divide up the spoils provided by the taxpayers. Now imagine that for a moment, $3,700,000,000,000.00 A YEAR! So the real point here is not where they decide to waste the taxpayers’ dollars it’s why in the world we send the dollars to these criminals in the first place.

Back in Florida if I didn’t want to wake up to an army of ants crawling all over my kitchen I would simply take the source of their visits  took away and Voilà- no ants. Thus, if we want to get rid of the constant corruption and cronyism in Washington - take away the source.

Ahhh, you say, if you do that, what about the babies? What about the homeless? What about the jobless?  What about all the great, wonderful things the federal government gives us?

Valid points I suppose, but here is the real question. Do you actually want the Federal government making decision to apply your tax dollars to - say a some bullshit climate change resilience fund? Who on God’s green earth would agree to pay for this crap? My guess is lobbyist/rent-seekers and others who benefit when the federal government disrupts the market and stupidly throws a billion dollars at something that will only benefit the cronies. So, by taking away the tax dollars (and the ability to borrow incessantly) the ants on the hill have no choice but to only apply those dollars to the most important missions such as keeping the country safe.

As for the babbies, the homeless and the jobless, the individual states are in a much better position to take care of these and many other issues now occupying the ants in Washington. I would argue that there is not one thing the Federal government can do (other than national security) better than the individual states can do for themselves. This way of thinking has the added bonus of keeping the states in line as well through competition. If, for example, California decides to raise taxes and build useless high-speed railways that’s their prerogative. However, they can’t bitch when all the folks who are paying for this crap decide to pack up and move to another state . So in California they either change their ways to or go bankrupt (remember there ain’t no money in the till in Washington for a bail out).

Exit homework assignment: for those who still doubt just how much the federal government should do for the electorate, read this essay about Davy Crockett and his views on federally funded welfare.  Spoiler alert - It's always easier to be compassionate with someone else's money. Here’s an excerpt:

 "There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House (of representatives)  many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Please read it all - it’s worth it.