Nathaniel

Shockey

Read Nathaniel's bio and previous columns here

August 5, 2009

Government Offers Free Money, People Accept; What a Huge Success!

Government leaders have recently discovered that the “Cash for Clunkers” program is a huge success! In a related story, soup kitchens remain popular among the homeless. Similarly, it’s been estimated that on December 25, 2009, children and parents will most likely open their presents instead of throwing them away unwrapped. Ninety-nine percent of dogs, when given a bone, will chew it. And finally, when given a choice between a pile of poop and a pile of money, economists estimate that in 2009, nine times out of 10, Americans will choose the pile of money.

Perhaps the most important thing to remember when evaluating the success of an idea that costs billions of dollars and directly involves millions of people is that it will probably take more than a few months to do so effectively. It may even require years. This is the problem with concluding that giving out free money is a success. And let’s not forget that the ostensible goal of the Cash for Clunkers program was to save the Earth. And how does one evaluate that? If the Earth doesn’t explode by 2010, should we officially label it a success?

Taxpayers/voters ought to be extremely wary of the way in which the government evaluates the efficacy of its ideas. If it includes whether or not Americans are still able to breathe air, if employments holds steady at 90 percent, or if the Dow Jones has yet to dip below 7,000, let’s be sure to understand that the government would have to work diligently, maliciously and/or stupidly to fail on either front. Of course, it’s not as though they’re incapable of achieving these goals, but it will definitely take more than, say, a year. That’s why it’s a good idea to study your history.

For those unaware, the Cash for Clunkers program is a law that through which the government gives $3,500 or $4,500 in rebates to individual consumers for trading in old gas-guzzlers and buying new, more fuel-efficient ones. It was estimated the money would last through November. When informed that the money was gobbled up in less than a week, the Shih Tzus responsible for this estimate were found sniffing one another and scratching themselves. They’re now so convinced of this program’s success that they’re lobbying for another $2 billion in funds. The Associated Press reported that lawmakers decided on $2 billion because it’s a nice round number and no one in the legislative branch is any good with sums.

Assuming Americans are equally receptive when we double of the size of this program, what should we do in two weeks when we’ve run out of even more borrowed cash? Should we double it again or hold steady at another $2 billion?

It’s been said that every person has his own debt saturation point. Otherwise, the average American household would have significantly more credit card debt than the current amount, which is somewhere around $10,000. Some people need about $10,000 in debt before they realize they have a huge problem. For others, it’s around $20,000. But eventually everyone reaches a point when they say, “I need to stop spending money I don’t have.” Unfortunately, while government debt is simply debt shared by all Americans, I’m concerned that our saturation point may be so high that, by the time we wake up and say, “We need to stop spending money we don’t have,” the current amount of $11 trillion will be more like $20 trillion. Or perhaps it will be 30. In the meantime, what’s another measly $2 billion so a bunch of us can buy new, more fuel-efficient cars?

Every now and again, after the government has proposed another $1 billion bit of legislation, it may be time for a reminder that the government is using money you earned. They’re not reaching into their savings. They’re giving you back yours. That Christmas present little Tommie gave you was purchased with money you gave him because he never earned a nickel!

Many others like me have used the government-parent metaphor. But the truth should be the exact opposite. It’s not Tommie’s fault he’s recklessly spending his money. We gave it to him, and the way in which he spends it is up to us, or at least that was the original idea. You’re the parents!

Here’s an idea. Let’s ask every member of our elected federal government to drive a clunker until they balance the budget. When they do that, they can start saving for the hybrids they claim to want oh so badly.

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is Column # NS181. Request permission to publish here.