I support the president. What does that mean? It means I want him to succeed in doing whatever part government policy can do to manage the effects of rampant greed and selfishness and neglect that has prevailed in government and private sectors for three decades.
I really don’t expect government to somehow make it possible for individuals and companies and governments to escape the consequences of their own decisions. I don’t think that is such a great idea in the first place. The nation, companies and individuals will reap what they have sown.
I do hope government won’t do too much damage. The principle of unintended consequences is easy to ignore but impossible to avoid.
It is important to remember that previous administrations did not intend to contribute to an economic recession, or wars, or the scourge of nuclear waste or flu epidemics. And it is important to remember that what a majority of scientists or economists or other experts honestly and sincerely thought would be solutions often turned out in the past to be worse that the problems they were supposed to fix. The scientists who invented DDT did not do it with the intention of causing cancer. The short term results (30 years) of the “green revolution” in India’s Punjab region were the result of forward thinking scientists, economics, social scientists who really meant well. Only today, 30 years later, do we see the very negative, unintended consequences. Japan was successful with population control policies and now faces a demographic disaster as a result. It is disingenuous to look back and say, “how wrong could they get?” when we are more than likely making similar mistakes.
In more recent days, those who strongly advocated the use of corn to create eco-friendly ethanol (those vocal advocates included President Obama) did so with the best intentions, but it appears may have done more damage than good. I can see how trying to make it possible for as many as possible to purchase a home seemed like a good idea, but that sub-prime policy above all others has contributed to the financial crisis (it is a weakling argument to blame regulators who were supposed to make sure greedy people did not allow a bad policy to go bad). A few months ago the previous and current administration were adamant in their shared view that General Motors was simply “too big” to go into bankruptcy. The solution by the Obama team was tens of billions of dollars of subsidy to prevent bankruptcy and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. They may have been well-intentioned, but the plan did not save the jobs or avoid the bankruptcy and the taxpayers’ money was largely wasted. Taxpayers and voters were not asked if they agreed with the bailouts, increased taxes and unprecedented national debt. Apparently it is to be understood that since we elected the leadership, they have carte blanche to do as they wish with our money. Imagine if there were a referendum today on bailout policies.
Even reasonably good policies will fail if undermined by conflicts of interest (a nicer way of saying corruption). Conflict of interest was a major contributor to the government-initiated, industry-supported sub-prime policies, and borrowers were more than eager to take advantage of the uncollaterized unearned opportunity. Now we face another set of policies infected with conflicts of interest. Again because government is becoming a major stakeholder in the companies and industries for which they make policy decisions. One of two things will happen. The tax base will erode as government demonstrates its inability to perform in a competitive commercial marketplace and we will all continue to pay more and more taxes to pay the interest on national debt and to support ever-growing services. That was just one thing, wasn’t it? Well, I guess I will leave speculation about alternatives to the reader. In the meantime, I am going to move away from this computer and spend a few minutes praying for our national leadership. I hope you will do the same.
–——
Editor’s Note: This guest editorial is offered by Dr. John Cragin a member of the News-Star’s Guest Editorial Board. The views expressed by our guest editorialists and guest columnists are theirs, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the News-Star’s management.
SHAWNEE, Okla. —
