Sunday, August 28, 2016
1012 C Street  •  Floresville, TX 78114  •  Phone: 830-216-4519  •  Fax: 830-393-3219  • 

WCN Site Search


Preview the Paper Preview the Paper

Preview this week's Paper
A limited number of pages are displayed in this preview.
Preview this Week’s Issue ›
Subscribe Today ›

Lost & Found


VideoLost dogs. Male terrier and female yellow lab mix lost between Floresville and Pleasanton Aug. 24 FM 3161 and CR 2505. No collars. If found, please call 830-391-5660.
Lost: Female German Shepherd, Aug. 13, Oak Hollow and Hwy. 87, La Vernia, mostly black with tan on legs, white on chest. Reward for safe return, call 210-296-1183.

VideoFound 08/20 on Palo Verde Floresville. The Estates of Eagle Creek subdivision. Please call 210-487-8284 or 210-831-1343. Please help this little one find their home.
More Lost & Found ads ›

Help Wanted

Caregivers needed. Call 830-625-0444.
Commercial Construction Superintendent. Accepting resumes for a Commercial Construction Superintendent with a minimum of 5 years experience. We are an established General Contractor based out of Pleasanton,Tx doing a variety of projects including ground-up new construction in the medical, financial, and retail sector, as well as remodels and interior finish outs. Duties and Responsibilities: Maintain a safe and clean job site, Schedule all activities, Ensure adherence to plans, schedule, and specifications, Provide daily progress updates, Provide attention to the Company’s expected commitment to quality. Required Qualifications: 5 years + of commercial construction experience, Must be familiar with all facets of building construction, Must be able to organize and manage all subcontractors and entire project from beginning to completion, Be able to work independently, Must have a valid Driver’s License and Social Security card. Email cover letter, resume, and salary requirements to: Webuild@wellsbuilds.com.
More Help Wanted ads ›

Featured Videos





Video Vault ›

Commentaries


The Question of More or Less Government




E-Mail this Story to a Friend
Print this Story

Disclaimer:
The author of this entry is responsible for this content, which is not edited by the Wilson County News or wilsoncountynews.com.
June 22, 2012 | 2,206 views | 1 comment

By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson

(Editor’s note: A version of this article first appeared at Forbes.com.)

Theoretically, the elemental political choice in a democratic system is between more government or less--more government control over our lives and livelihood, or less; more government spending and programs than the year before, or less; more government power, or less.

In practice, for as long as I can remember, the choice for Americans has been between the party that wants more government (the Democrats, or the party of Big Government) and the party that still wants more government, but a little bit less more (the Republicans, or the party of Big Government Lite). There never really seems to be a choice between a presidential candidate who unequivocally wants Uncle Sam to spend more money next year and one who wants the federal government to spend less; that is, “less” as in not a smaller increase, not a phantom D.C.-style budget “cut” from baseline projections, but a real, honest-to-goodness decrease in the actual number of dollars flying out of the U.S. Treasury.

I thought of this not long ago when I attended a conference and heard some of Ron Paul’s supporters wonder how Mitt Romney could appeal to them. Here’s a suggestion: Offer them a genuine opportunity to vote for less government.

This proposal might strike some as radical, since it is outside the realm of the experience of living voters, but we face an unprecedented set of conditions today that make such a fundamental change of direction conceivable, though admittedly not likely.

Romney already has proposed cutting numerous federal agencies and programs that waste federal tax dollars more egregiously than your typical run-of-the-mill federal bureaucracy. Why not attach a dollar figure to his budget cutting? How about campaigning on a nice round number? E.g., “My first annual budget will cap federal spending at $3 trillion.”

I don’t know about you, but $3 trillion for the wasteful, economy-crushing federal leviathan sounds to me like way too much money, but at least it’s a step--a significant step--in the right direction.

The case for such a cut is simple: Under President Obama, we have fallen into a fiscal rut of adding at least $1.2 trillion to the federal debt every year. Does anybody other than an economic illiterate think we can afford such massive floods of red ink? Even if we achieved the ambitious target of cutting federal spending to $3 trillion a year, we still would have an annual deficit larger than any deficit in history before the panic-induced TARP bailout in 2008-9. If those who are on the conservative side of economic issues think it’s “too radical” to propose an annual budget deficit of “only” half a trillion dollars, then perhaps we need to redefine “conservative.”

There is another strong point to be made in support of capping the next fiscal year’s spending at $3 trillion: What were the benefits of Obama’s quantum increase in federal spending? Did it stimulate the economy? Did it bring us prosperity? What did we get for adding $5 trillion more debt during these last three years? Is there a Henry Morgenthau (FDR’s Treasury Secretary) in the Democrats’ ranks today with the candor to admit, as Morgenthau did in 1939, that all the administration’s extra spending hasn’t helped, but has saddled us with a massive debt burden? Romney should forcefully make the case that deficit spending is both wrong and dangerous, and that it’s time for Uncle Sam to live within taxpayers’ means.

Obama talked about various “resets” earlier in his presidency. Well, let’s reset federal spending to what it was when Obama took office and engineered the worst fiscal nightmare in nearly 80 years. For the first time in seemingly forever, voters would have a real choice between voting for more government and voting for less government. That would give the Ron Paul supporters a meaningful stake in this year’s election. It should also appeal to the long-suffering taxpayers who get stuck with the tab for federal profligacy.

One of the Democrats’ greatest political strengths is their unity. They know what they want. They want more, as in, more government. There is no end to how much more government the “progressives” among them want, although most are too cagey to admit that openly. Just ask them where they want government spending to shrink (except on national defense), and you’ll find the list either to be empty or to include a couple inconsequential token cuts offered only as a fiscal fig leaf.

Will the Republican Party ever coalesce around the principle of steadily working for less government as strongly as the Democrats have coalesced around the principle of more? Perhaps not, but I’d sure like to see Gov. Romney surprise everyone and move the GOP in that direction in this prodigiously momentous election year. Give us a real choice, Mitt: More or less?

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. © 2012 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The views & opinions expressed herein may, but do not necessarily, reflect the views of Grove City College.
 
‹ Previous Blog Entry
 

Your Opinions and Comments

 
Elaine K.  
Floresville  
June 22, 2012 2:21pm
 
New post.

Share your comment or opinion on this story!


You must be logged in to post a comment.




Not a subscriber?
Subscriber, but no password?
Forgot password?

Commentaries Archives


Commentaries
Commentaries page govtrack.us
Commentaries who represents me?
Triple R DC ExpertsVoncille Bielefeld homeHeavenly Touch homeAllstate & McBride RealtyFriesenhahn Custom Welding

  Copyright © 2007-2016 Wilson County News. All rights reserved. Web development by Drewa Designs.