Post by jgaffney on Aug 22, 2011 23:27:24 GMT -5
The liberal press - including our Press Democrat - was only too happy to reprint Warren Buffet's essay on why income taxes should be raised. I won't excerpt the op-ed here because: (1) you've probably read it already; and (2) it's not worth it. However, in today's WSJ, Harvey Golub, the former CEO of American Express, tells us why he is reluctant to give the government more of his money. Here's the best part:
Governments have an obligation to spend our tax money on programs that work. They fail at this fundamental task. Do we really need dozens of retraining programs with no measure of performance or results? Do we really need to spend money on solar panels, windmills and battery-operated cars when we have ample energy supplies in this country? Do we really need all the regulations that put an estimated $2 trillion burden on our economy by raising the price of things we buy? Do we really need subsidies for domestic sugar farmers and ethanol producers?
Why do we require that public projects pay above-market labor costs? Why do we spend billions on trains that no one will ride? Why do we keep post offices open in places no one lives? Why do we subsidize small airports in communities close to larger ones? Why do we pay government workers above-market rates and outlandish benefits? Do we really need an energy department or an education department at all?
Here's my message: Before you "ask" for more tax money from me and others, raise the $2.2 trillion you already collect each year more fairly and spend it more wisely. Then you'll need less of my money.
Why, exactly, do we need a Department of Energy? Does it do anything to increase the availability of energy? It seems to me that, since the department was founded during the Nixon (?) administration, the amount of imported oil has increased, not decreased. So, how effective has that department been?
Why, exactly, do we need a Department of Education? What has that department done to increase education levels in the country. It seems to me that, since the department was founded during the Carter administration, graduation levels in inner city schools have gone down, not up. So, how effective has that department been?
There are thousands of other examples of federal programs that, despite being totally ineffective, are giant magnets for funds. Until Congress can address that issue, no, I don't feel like giving the government another cent of my money.
Governments have an obligation to spend our tax money on programs that work. They fail at this fundamental task. Do we really need dozens of retraining programs with no measure of performance or results? Do we really need to spend money on solar panels, windmills and battery-operated cars when we have ample energy supplies in this country? Do we really need all the regulations that put an estimated $2 trillion burden on our economy by raising the price of things we buy? Do we really need subsidies for domestic sugar farmers and ethanol producers?
Why do we require that public projects pay above-market labor costs? Why do we spend billions on trains that no one will ride? Why do we keep post offices open in places no one lives? Why do we subsidize small airports in communities close to larger ones? Why do we pay government workers above-market rates and outlandish benefits? Do we really need an energy department or an education department at all?
Here's my message: Before you "ask" for more tax money from me and others, raise the $2.2 trillion you already collect each year more fairly and spend it more wisely. Then you'll need less of my money.
Why, exactly, do we need a Department of Energy? Does it do anything to increase the availability of energy? It seems to me that, since the department was founded during the Nixon (?) administration, the amount of imported oil has increased, not decreased. So, how effective has that department been?
Why, exactly, do we need a Department of Education? What has that department done to increase education levels in the country. It seems to me that, since the department was founded during the Carter administration, graduation levels in inner city schools have gone down, not up. So, how effective has that department been?
There are thousands of other examples of federal programs that, despite being totally ineffective, are giant magnets for funds. Until Congress can address that issue, no, I don't feel like giving the government another cent of my money.