Skip to main content

Progressive Fallacy Number Two

2) Every action has a consequence – the one we want.

Of course, we know this is not true. An action may have two consequences – or more. When one strikes with a cue ball the triangle of balls in billiards, all the balls move, some in unwanted directions.

Translated from billiards to politics, this means that when I raise a tax to satisfy a need, my action may have unintended consequences. I may satisfy the need and create a dependency that may prove to be unappeasable; or the tax may create another problem; or raising the tax may have been an inefficient solution to the problem; or …

There is also a point of diminishing returns that comes into play when taxes are raised. At some point, and at some wage levels, even a reasonable tax may be the straw that breaks the camels back. Just as one might not be able to afford a new Jaguar, so one might not be able to afford high priced taxes.

What happens when a taxpayer cannot pay the tax? Pretty much the same thing that happens when a renter cannot pay the rent. Either he moves to a new better paying job, or he finds a new less costly rent. Rather than suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, hard pressed taxpayers tend to maximize their assets by moving away from the slings and arrows; or, if given the opportunity, they vote out of office their tormentors, replacing them with decision makers who understand the meaning of the words “no new taxes.”

Now, anyone who has attempted to balance a household budget will have noticed that the trick involves adjusting money coming in to money going out. This delicate adjustment is mentioned by Charles Dickens, the author of David Copperfield, in connection with Mr. McCawber’s finances: “Annual income of pounds 20 coupled with expenditure of only 19 pounds 19 shillings and 6 pence was, he mused, happiness itself. But spend say 20 pounds and 6 pence and it’s misery.” For McCawber, the over expenditures led to the poor house. To avoid debt, most of us are unusually attentive to the delicate balance; but then, most of us cannot charge our debts to a generation of workers and taxpayers yet unborn.

Progressives, those who worship at redistributionist alter, have got it figured out: We will use the government as a redistributionist instrument to move goods and services from the haves to the have nots according to the socialist formula "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." Translated into the modern idiom, this means: Connecticut millionaires comfortably situated in the state’s Gold Coast, Fairfield County, won’t mind it a bit if the state forces them to abide by Christian commandments.

There is an unintended consequence involved in this compulsory charity though: The delicate balance between getting and spending, which serves as a break on profligacy, is overthrown when any expenditure, however extravagant, is permitted because no one will complain about spending. To put it in mathematical terms: There are in Connecticut more consumers of millionaires’ dollars than there are millionaires, and politicians are expert vote counters.

So, where is the break on spending to come from? Where is the cop who will haul off to the poor house legislators who spend beyond their means? Who will say no to the prodigal’s sons in the legislature? And is there an unintended consequence to limitless spending?

There is indeed. Just as no man is an island unto himself, but part of a larger continent, so no state is an island unto itself. If the cost of doing business in Connecticut continues to be driven ever higher by borderless spending, businesses will continue to migrate to less punishing states. And so will millionaires, leaving –Guess who? – holding the bag.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"Something will turn up"
Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton, a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Dave Walker, Turning Around The Misery Index

Dave Walker, who is running for Lieutenant Governor on the Republican Party ticket, is recognized by most credible political observers as perhaps the most over qualified candidate for Lieutenant Governor in state history.
He is a member of the Accounting Hall of Fame and for ten years was the Comptroller General of the United States. When Mr. Walker talks about budgets, financing and pension viability, people listen.
Mr. Walker is also attuned to fine nuances in political campaigning. He is not running for governor, he says, because he had moved to Connecticut only four years ago and wishes to respect the political pecking order. Very few people in the state think that, were he governor, Mr. Walker would know less about the finance side of government than his budget chief.

Murphy Stumbles

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy has been roughly cuffed by some news outlets, but not by Vox, which published on April 16 a worshipful article on Connecticut’s Junior Senator, “The Senator of State: How Connecticut’s Chris Murphy, a rising Democratic star, would run the world.”
On April 15, The Federalist mentioned Murphy in an article entitled “Sen. Chris Murphy: China And The World Health Organization Did Nothing Wrong. The lede was a blow to Murphy’s solar plexus: “Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy exonerated China of any wrongdoing over the global pandemic stemming from the novel Wuhan coronavirus on Tuesday.
“’The reason that we’re in the crisis that we are today is not because of anything that China did, is not because of anything the WHO [World Health Organization] did,’ said Murphy during a prime-time interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper.”