Maybe there really is a free lunch. Not!! | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: Jim Bispo's weekly column appears in the Beaufort Observer.

    How do we allow ourselves to be taken advantage of so regularly?? The continuing - but so far seemingly unsuccessful - war on poverty is a good case in point. First someone generates a study that identifies a rather large percentage of the population as living "in poverty". "Poverty" remains undefined which makes it virtually impossible to judge the severity of the problem or the efficacy of the solutions proposed. Then they set out to "sell" the rest of us on the validity of the report and the magnitude of the problem. When they do so, they seem to invariably focus on folks who can't afford groceries or health care as being the target of their largesse. Other folks who own HD TV/VCRs and $100.00 (or more) per month "texting" cell phones are also part of the cohort but they will largely remain in the shadows. The overall poverty statistics you will hear about will include both of the foregoing situations, but the you will only hear details about the former. The next thing you know, we are "helping" all these "poor folks". Free lunches!!

    As an aside; speaking about poverty, Thomas Sowell makes an interesting observation. He says that even though the percentage of the population deemed to be in poverty may remain essentially the same from one survey to the next, it is largely not the same people. The folks who comprised the poor at the last survey have largely "moved up" only to be replaced by new folks. That certainly casts the situation in an entirely new and different light. But I digress...

    So what else are we told that needs to be done to alleviate the poverty that seems to be so endemic?? We are told that business needs to increase wages and hire more people. We hear a lot of folks telling us that if only business would begin hiring, the unemployment picture would soon brighten. That's probably true, but only if they are hiring for the right reason. The right reason is because the additional staff is required to meet a real or anticipated demand for whatever good or service the company provides. The wrong reason is to simply bring the unemployment rate down. . The wrong reason - another free lunch.

    And now we are being told by those geniuses camping out in lower Manhattan that the government needs to set up more programs like the WPA, or the CCC or any of a multitude of other Roosevelt era make work projects to resolve our unemployment situation. It's not clear whether or not the workers will have to be unionized or if Davis-Bacon wage rates will have to be paid on the construction jobs. Of course, we can only wonder how many of the"campers" would take jobs of the sorts supported by the likes of those depression era programs. (I missed the part about where the money with which to do this comes from.) The other thing they would have us do is forgive all student loans. Surely having to repay a loan can get to be a real drag. But are we really sure that will help the employment situation or the nation's economy?? What's to become of all the folks whose jobs are associated with issuing and servicing the student loans?? If they are no longer needed, do you suppose they will be kept on the payroll??. Well, now that the chief community organizer has moved all student loans away from banks to the government, they probably would be kept on the payroll; but not so if they had been left with the banks. Hmmm... More free lunch for some (i.e. those whose student loans are "forgiven") - not so much for those who stand to lose their jobs.

    It is somewhat surprising that businesses have to be told to hire more folks. I'm sure they all would love to be hiring. The only thing holding most of them back is that the demand for the goods or services they are providing does not support increasing the number of employees. You increase your costs without a commensurate increase in your gross income and before long will find yourself in the market for red ink. If you want to bring a company to it's knees, simply require them to employ people that they don't need. Up goes the salary costs - with no increase in revenues. How long do you suppose anyone but the government could survive in a situation like that?? The short answer is - not long; even with government backing. Take Solyndra for example. Reportedly, solar panels that cost $6.00 to make were being sold by Solyndra for $3.00. They soon figured out that even with Steven Chu and the entire Energy Department backing them, that was not a viable business model. Welcome to Bankruptcy Court. Not so many free lunches there...(unless the bankruptcy is orchestrated by the anointed one and his minions, that is - Think GM)
   
    Likewise, we hear over and over that the rich need to start paying their "fair share" of taxes. Has the anointed one or any of his surrogates ever even tried to define what that fair share is?? Short answer: NO. Whatever they are paying is not enough. About all we can infer is that "fair share" is more than they are currently paying. What we do not hear from these functionaries is anything about the 45 or 46% of the population that either pays no income tax or actually gets a tax refund that exceeds the amount of taxes withheld from their pay (if any). Lots of free lunches here....

    And now, get ready for another rip-off; this one based on a currently under way "Land Use Survey" of the populace . It is sponsored by the planners from the Mid-East Commission along with the planning folks at the state Department of Transportation. More free lunches on the way.

    The survey can be found by clicking here.

    You must go look at the survey. (I was going to import it into this piece, but it is too long to fit gracefully, so you have to go to the site identified to see it.). It begins to look like we are about to be had again The survey asks about all manner of things ranging from your preferences for mass transportation, improving the environment, improving safety of our roads and the like. Among all the subjects included in the survey, there is nothing to dislike. All the things that are mentioned are "apple pie and motherhood" solutions to unstated land use problems (whatever they are). Of course we want a perfect traffic system. Of course we want faster, safer commutes. Or course we want sidewalks so we can keep pedestrians from having to walk in the roads. Of course we want more left turn lanes. Of course we want a lot of other things. Of course.... The one thing that at least one of us (me) wants is for all the do-gooders who have managed to get themselves appointed to various commissions that are going to be the salvation of our state (county, town) to quit pulling this kind of misdirection on the public. The notion of obtaining public input is great. The idea of asking only questions that will elicit the pre-determined desired response is a travesty (e.g. How important is it to minimize the impact of development on wetlands, streams and wildlife or to limit development outside City Limits?? Duh...).

    Is there any doubt the results flowing from the survey will take us exactly where the originators and designers of the survey want us to be taken?? The survey can then be used to justify all manner of new projects that the people have already indicated they support. Just wait for the glossy paper report. It will all be there.

    What might be interesting to see is how much the outcome would change if the response to each "desire" must include an indication as to how many cents of additional gas tax (or income tax or sales tax or any other kind of tax or toll) the person responding to the survey would be willing to pay for the particular improvement. That would certainly give us a great idea as to the real priorities the public places on each of these grandiose improvements? My guess is that in most cases the need would either disappear or be severely attenuated. Enough with the free lunches already...

    D'ya think??
Go Back


Leave a Guest Comment

Your Name or Alias
Your Email Address ( your email address will not be published)
Enter Your Comment ( no code or urls allowed, text only please )




School board's redistricing is seriously flawed D'ya think??, Editorials, Op-Ed & Politics A story of a hero


HbAD0

Latest Op-Ed & Politics

President Joe Biden took direct aim at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas during a recent interview, referring to him simply as “the guy who likes to spend a lot of time on yachts.”
The best way the county and city can help hold down inflation is to resist all tax increases
Pope Francis lambasted leftist gender ideology during an address this week, warning that it presented an extreme danger to mankind.
amnesty would just encourage more illegal aliens to storm our borders
The Christmas candy was barely off the shelves when the Valentine’s candy appeared. Red and pink hearts with caramel and nut-filled chocolate goodness caught our eye. We are reminded of how we love love. Young love, especially.
far left sugar daddy has also funded anti-Israel groups and politicians in US
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it
America needs to wake up and get its priorities right

HbAD1

 
Back to Top