I’ll believe you when you do it

During the discussion on a previous post here, I made a comment about Colorado Springs:  “what’s amusing to me about the “small government” and “low taxes” concentration there is that if there ever was a place that was dependent on the taxpayer’s dollar, it’s Colorado Springs. Let’s get real – if there weren’t the Air Force Academy, Cheyenne Mountain, Peterson AFB, Garden of the Gods, Pikes Peak, and so on around it, it’d be a small town with not much to do.”

It’s the great hypocrisy and serious blind spot of many places that are “staunchly conservative.”   They will rail against “big government,” elect representatives who will decry “waste” and “pork,” while stumping to cut taxes, while cheerfully ignoring that their state or district is dependent on federal tax dollars.  It may even be a major part of their economy, the “stable” part.  A number of commentators elsewhere have pointed out that if you look at the actual flow of tax dollars, the “conservative” states receive more in federal money than they pay.   Of course, no politician in those states will admit it.  Instead, you have people like Rand Paul railing about how they need to stop their state (Kentucky) from sending so much money to Washington.

I know exactly what would happen if the federal government were to oblige them and cut spending – starting with them.  They’d scream their heads off.   I also know exactly what would happen to their economy, because I’ve seen it.   The area where I went to high school had an Air Force base in a small city near my town.  A few of my classmates had parents who were employed there.   It was a fairly vibrant city, with lots of shops, some manufacturers, and things to do.  It had a stable economy.  Then then came the day the government decided to close the base.  It’s no longer all that vibrant.  The economy isn’t stable anymore.  A lot of businesses ended up closing, and manufacturing moved elsewhere.  It’s never quite recovered from that.

But it cut government spending!  It was a more efficient use of tax dollars!  So, yes, I do know what will happen.  But, if they want to keep preaching about small government to me, then I’m willing to oblige them.  I think it should start with them.  Yes, I’ll believe you when you do it.   You know what?  I don’t think you will.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Politics

3 responses to “I’ll believe you when you do it

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention I’ll believe you when you do it « Norbrook's Blog -- Topsy.com

  2. And you point out one of the problems that always bothered me about Republicans. The disconnect they have about cutting the spending and the results of cutting the spending.

    If they were to be honest about it these politicians (of any type, stripe, or ilk,) when calling for cuts, should lay out specifics and tell people exactly where/how this will impact their communities.

    To do otherwise is, IMHO, unethical.

    I have no problem with less government, but I’m realistic enough to know that every action has an opposite and equal reaction and that “reaction” may cause some difficult adjustments.

    • Exactly. It’s not uncommon among Democrats either, although more usually they call for more taxes. I found it truly egregious that senior Republicans, while calling for an extension of tax cuts, were then stating that there was no need for spending cuts to pay for those cuts. I’m not an economist, but I have had enough math to know that less money in means less money to spend. I also find some amusement in their inability to understand that the benefits and employment government spending creates in their district is the result of tax money raised somewhere, and if they’re not willing to accept cuts in their own home, they need to stop expounding on it when it’s someone else. I said a while back, it’s only “pork” if it’s not in your district. If it’s in your district, it’s bacon.