The moral high ground?

We respectfully point you to an article on CNN.com to which this post is a response.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/begala.carolina/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~

I fully agree that the states shouldn’t take the money. Here is the concern with doing that. You’re disadvantaging your state because the feds have inappropriately stacked the deck by entering federal funds into state business.

Let’s use the following example as a “moral objection” Mr. Begala loves to hound.

Let’s assume you have a moral objection to war. You don’t believe killing people is justified under virtually any circumstances. Other countries (and individual rouge groups for that matter) don’t have such an objection. So you go around touting your moral objection to war and then BAM! – another country attacks you and your neighbors. You have guns, ships, tanks, nuclear warheads, whatever you need to fight and defend your country just as much as the other countries. However, you don’t approve of war. You have a moral objection to violence.

So you do as Mr. Begala is daring Governor Sanford to do. You take the “high road” and don’t use your weapons. Your neighbors, have the same moral objection but use their weapons. They defend themselves and survive. You engage in unconditional talks with your enemy and seek the assistance of the UN. The UN Security Council writes 18 resolutions calling for peace that does absolutely no good and your country is taken over.

What have you accomplished? You have only gone to prove that the use of weapons is good right? That the moral objection was wrong to begin with right?

WRONG.

You’ve only shown that when the moral objection is pitted against those without the moral objection or those willing to turn a blind eye to it, you’re more likely to lose. The truth is, war would be better without weapons. But when the other side is acting outside moral boundaries, your taking of the high road may lead to your extinction.

The fact of the matter is that the moral objection was right (in this analogy, it’s not, but I digress). The weapons were destructive and the environment was destroyed in ways unimaginable. An entire generation was wiped out with the weapons and the healing process for the culture will take decades to accomplish. But, you still have your country right?

To come back to the point, these costs are not discussed by our beloved Mr. Begala. What burden are we placing on our future generations? How will the federal government pay for it? What tax will be levied on what business or individual that will pay the cost of this program? What future businesses will go out of business because we’re paying for the stimulus to prop up businesses that can’t survive a market downturn or worse, were corrupt and stole from investors, taxpayers and lenders?

If every state except South Carolina takes federal funds, SC is now disadvantaged. They have taken the high road and will suffer for it. Nevertheless, it is the high road. So out of practicality, SC must take the funds to remain competitive. What made that necessary? South Carolina? Was it their fault? No. It was Congress and President Obama that has attacked the marketplace of state competitive economies with a “necessary” interjection of funding and has made it impossible for states to take the high road.

What would happen if the states were to not get that funding? Perhaps California is a good example to turn to. We might actually cut spending. Shock of all shocks. We’re spending more than we bring in. Doesn’t it make sense to cut spending. It’s what you do at home. It’s what companies must do if they can’t get the credit. It’s what entire countries do to avert government collapse.

So I ask Mr. Begala, what are the future costs of this program? We are issuing T-Bills (everybody assumes this is how this will be financed) for the $789 billion dollars. What is the total bill you and I will be paying as taxpayers? Over 10 years, the actual cost of the bill has $744 billion in debt servicing. So what is the impact of saddling our federal budget with an additional 1.5 trillion in spending over the next 10 years? Apparently a balanced budget is no longer a moral high ground issue for the Clinton fan club (A.K.A. Obama’s appointees).

How about we have the federal government take the high road and not try to fix the marketplace. Or at a minimum, let’s hand the money to successful banks and bank executives (such as can be found in the local community banks) instead of government bureaucrats, failed banks, and the executives that created some of the mess to begin with.

Once again, government thinks they can solve the problem. They can’t control the markets – they can only change the game so that some parties win and others lose. Unfortunately, in this case, the banks and some very specific pet project participants (such as the rail from LA to Vegas that has been deemed financially unviable by private developers) will reap the benefits and the taxpayer, states’ rights, citizens’ rights, and the concept of limited government fought so valiantly by the founding fathers will pay the price.

So the final question becomes, what weapons are we as citizens willing to use against our government when they attack our economy and the free marketplace that made all of that wealth to begin with? What is the moral high ground on this one?

Tags: Begala, CNN, economic stimulus, Governor Sanford, politics, South Carolina, stimulus package