I don’t think so. I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs…because we’re buying equipment, and people are working.
It's known as the Broken Window Fallacy...
The parable describes a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy. Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefiting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefiting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.
This argument is ridiculous on its face; when the window is broken, public wealth shrinks by the value of the window. The shopkeeper must use funds that he would have spent elsewhere in order to repair it. If the cost of the window was $10, bread $5, and shoes $5, then before it was broken he could have had shoes, bread, AND a fixed window. Now that the window is broken, he must spend that $10 to fix it, and can no longer afford to buy the bread and shoes. Public welfare has decreased. This can easily be illustrated by imagining a gang of boys founding a 'charity' in which they break all the windows in town. Are they still public benefactors?
Iraq, similarly, is a money sink. While the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in Iraq do indeed create jobs, they come from a pool of federal dollars that now cannot be used to fund other projects. We can again highlight the extreme case: does the economy benefit if we start wars all over the world? Wars are economically justifiable only if they protect or enhance future productivity; if Bush wants to declare Iraq a benefit to the economy, he must make that argument, not engage the public with his short-sighted view of the job market.
All of this economic ignorance, though, brings to mind a very pertinent issue for fiscal conservatives. Can politicians be trusted on their pledges, when they do not recognize the economic foundation for the policy? In May of 2001, while voting against Bush's tax cuts, John McCain made the following statement:
I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.
Presently, the prospective nominee for the GOP is touting his fiscal credentials, his high ACU ratings, and his devotion to lower taxes. But with all due respect, "I will cut taxes" is not a campaign slogan, Senator. It's a commitment to an economic mindset that the government is inefficient, and the money is best left to private individuals and corporations who have a vested interest in efficiency and return on investment. Tax cuts are not political favors to be handed to the popular class, nor are they independent of the spending cuts that must follow.
Without a verified commitment to the economic philosophy, we cannot trust anything you have to say on taxes. The John McCain of 2001 is just buying the votes of the poor and middle class, while the John McCain of 2008 is just lying to the conservative base, pledging something he doesn't believe in. Your class warfare statements have almost completely disqualified any future remarks on the matter.
You are in the same boat, Mr. President. We appreciate the generous tax cuts, but you have taken the increased revenue from the stimulated investment economy and spent it on the government programs of your choice. Your war in Iraq, your prescription drug program, and your refusal to veto earmark-laden appropriations bills have left us with a government much larger than the one you inherited. This is an indefensible reality for a "fiscal conservative," no matter how often you pledge allegiance to tax cuts.
No comments:
Post a Comment