Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate and distinguished New York Times columnist, informs America today that everyone on the right is a bigoted, hateful predator.
Krugman is long-known for ignoring reality in order to push Democrats’ currently favored narratives, even when doing so causes him to contradict his earlier pronouncements of unquestionable truths. Today’s wishcasting in which Krugman purposely misrepresents perceives as Republicans’ vision of government is worthy of a Nobel Prize for delusion in its own right:
In [the Right’s governmental] vision, much if not most government spending is a complete waste, doing nobody any good. The same is true of government regulations. And to the extent to which spending does help anyone, it’s Those People — lazy, undeserving types who just so happen to be a bit, well, darker than Real Americans.
The Right favors smaller government and lower taxes because we hate Those Danged Darkies Who Stole Our Jobs. Got it. Couldn’t possibly be that we believe in rule of law, government obedient to our Constitution, and equality of opportunity not result.
‘Puter could rant all day about Krugman’s bad faith, the injustice of his perch atop one of the country’s largest megaphones, and his rancid, louse-infested beard, but ‘Puter’d rather spend his limited lifespan on something more constructive.
Krugman’s “argument,” such as it is, glosses over the foundation of the Right’s argument, likely because Krugman and his Democrat fellow travelers on the social justice Left have no useful response.
The Right does not argue government spending cannot do good. The Right simply argues that any good government spending does must be weighed against the commensurate harm such good does to those who provide the funding for government spending.
If you believe government simply prints more money when it needs it, and that at its base government funding doesn’t involve armed men dipping into unwilling taxpayers’ pockets, you can stop reading right now. Nothing ‘Puter’s going to say – and nothing Jesus were he to descend from Heaven right now before your eyes could say – will convince you.
Every dollar of every federal program, no matter how good or bad such program is, comes out of an American’s pocket. The government owes a duty to ensure forcibly extracted taxes are (1) necessary and (2) well-spent. That’s the bargain Americans made in our Constitution.
Government doesn’t get to steal money from us just because it thinks a courthouse named for Klansman and Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd would be nice. Government doesn’t get to steal money from us just because naming a bridge in Boston after Mary Jo Kopechne would be right and just. “It would be a good idea” does not equal “taxpayers must pay for it.”
Government is constitutionally limited, and its power to tax and spend is limited to its Constitutional functions. Last ‘Puter checked, funding children’s television and hard Left classical music stations freeloading off America’s bandwidth isn’t within government’s mandate.
Each and every time a moron like Krugman opens his mouth to wail “why do you hate children? Why are you killing Grandma?” the proper response is “Why are you stealing from people who can barely afford food? Why are you pissing on the Constitution?”
Is the Meals on Wheels program a good thing? Probably. Is it within the federal government purview to provide such services? Probably not. Is it necessary for the federal government to fund such a program? No.
So much of what federal government now does it does precisely because it drove charities out of these functions by occupying the space. If federal government doesn’t fund Meals on Wheels (and it only funds about 3% of its total budget), Meals on Wheels will still exist. People will voluntarily pick up the slack, and with the tax cut garnered from cutting unnecessary government spending, they can afford to do so.
Will PBS and NPR cease to exist if federal government stops funding it? No. Rich liberal elites will pony up to pay more for their tote bags, and both broadcasters can always sell advertising. Hell, they already do sell advertising. Have you missed the “brought to you by” portions of their broadcasts? IT’S FRIKKIN’ ADVERTISING, PEOPLE! PBS and NPR are already commercialized, their protestations of absolute virginal purity notwithstanding.
‘Puter’s not arguing to slash necessary and effective government social programs. Of course government should provide food, shelter, and health care to the poor. The question is whether government does so effectively. There are very good arguments government does not. There are even better arguments that government has worsened and entrenched poverty. Asking government to prove a program’s effectiveness and killing ineffective programs isn’t thinly veiled bigotry, it’s wise stewardship of public funds and an honoring of the Constitution.
So, Mr. Krugman, riddle ‘Puter this. Why do you believe government should take money from Americans at the point of a gun and spend it on programs that aren’t necessary, don’t provide the relief intended, or both?
‘Puter’ll wait for your answer.