This cycle is often attributed to Alexander Tytler, but most likely belongs to an Industrialist named Henning Webb Prentis, Jr from a speech called "Industrial Management in a Republic." Regardless of the source, it really does seem to fit into history.Bondage to Spiritual Faith
Spiritual Faith to Courage
Courage to Freedom
Freedom to Abundance
Abundance to Selfishness
Selfishness to Complacency
Complacency to Apathy
Apathy to Fear
Fear to Dependency
Dependency to Bondage
What Alexander Tytler probably did write though, is a bit similar in nature:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.Which of course sounds an awful lot like a quote attributed to Ben Franklin,
When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.Lots of great advice all pointing towards fiscal responsibility and the need for limited federal government. Two concepts which cower in the face of both S-1and HR-1. But let's set aside the fear of dependency our earlier generations and conservatives all seem to share. Let's just talk about the voting-money-to-ourselves part.
Take a look at the stimulus bill. A real look, not a partisan look and not just what the majority party is willing to show you. 600 million for a nature trail that will only contribute 60 new, yet temporary, jobs? And this isn't "Pork?" The ROI on that project isn't worth the interest. And that's just one of many, many examples. (How about a brand new indoor soccer facility in NY? Sure, why not.) [edit: it was pointed out that these are proposals, which I understand. I guess my greater point is that this shows the problem with handing out blank checks, which you'd think we would have learned our lesson on. Without definition of how to spend the money, this is the de facto reality. Worse yet, check out the Chicago Mayor's approach. ]
Then again, President Obama claims it's not a big deal because all the pork adds up to only 1% of the total. Right. 1% of a trillion dollars that belongs to my future grand kids, before interest. What kind of business are we running here?
Don't get me wrong. Hardly anyone will make an argument for no stimulus of any kind. That's not the discussion. There's even a Libertarian plan floating around. And putting on my bi-partisan cap for second, spending programs, when implemented properly, can garner wide spread support. It's hard to argue against the highway system for instance, an ambitious federal program pushed for by a Republican president. In the same vein, it's worth pointing out that tax cuts were a critical component of JFK's platform. There is plenty of room for compromise to create an effective bill.
What won't work is strong arming conservatives in the name of faux compromise with legislation filled with broken window spending, pork barrel projects and political grand standing. If it's such an urgency, we should be cutting every debatable program to get something out the door. If the majority party were really interested in bi-partisanship instead of earning a political win, this would have been done already.
Call or e-mail your Representative and Senators. Let them know this thing needs a fresh start. A new bill that's actually legitimate is what this country deserves.
If you live in Florida, here's the link to Sen Bill Nelson's contact form and Sen. Mel Martinez's.
Comments...
(Page 1)1. ha! did our convo the other day spark this?
personally - i'd rather see it just go away. what did the first "stimulus" help or change? nothing. shouldn't we step back and say "OK, the first 750+ billion hasn't really done shit - so why should we add more?". it put a ton of money with no accountability or transparency into the hands of the very same people that are part of the problem. those people then took that money and paid themselves the 6th highest bonuses on record.
now the accountability is coming around. 500k caps for executive pay. but how does something like that not happen from the get go? how much of this bill will be a mistake down the line? lets just stick with the certainties.
i see and understand the frustration and anger by this "stimulus" bill. whether it's 1 or 2% of 819 billion or 10 or 20% - now is not the time to be pushing some of this shit through. but what percentage of the first "stimulus" has been completely squandered? bet you it's a lot more than 1, 2, 10, or 20%. seems to me the republican drums are beating pretty hard on this one and not all that hard about getting this first give-a-way back from wall st/banks - the even bigger waste of tax payer dollars...
3:40PM on Feb 5th 2009 by seanosh
2. Agreed largely on the first bill(s).
The thing to remember is that there is a difference between un-freezing credit and stimulating new economic growth. The stimulus aspects -- the cutting checks to people in hopes they'd spend it -- was an absolute travesty. If someone's hierarchy of needs is met and they carry debt (the average american), it doesn't do anything for the GDP. It simply pays down debt (revenue already counted somewhere). Not only did it not work, people figured out that we can actually vote to do that sort of thing. Bad, bad news.
When it comes to greasing the wheels of our credit system, I think it was sadly necessarily. Good businesses deserve access to loans -- not only deserve, our economy requires them access to loans. When all that money froze up and no one would trade currency anymore.. Well.. That's a pretty bad place to find ourselves.
The big 3 auto bailouts, S-1/HR-1, all this stuff being discussed now are the after effect of the pandora's box we opened up by coming to the aid of the banks (even if that was indeed necessary)
I agree with you 100% on accountability and transparency. It's a damned shame that it didn't happen the first time around. I'm not for telling private industry what/how to operate, but when tax payers money is involved the equation has to change a little bit. And this is a forward looking thing -- it doesn't do anything to the banks who have already taken money. It's just.. any future bank who wants to take money is going to have to follow these guidelines or not take the money. I think that's fair.
I have to say that I'm curious to see if there are unintended consequences of freezing executive pay rates. Theoretically there shouldn't be many -- it's not that they aren't allowed to be compensated, it's that the compensation is delayed through stock options (I think at least, thats how I parsed it.). I'd imagine though that foreign finance companies would be tempted to swoop in and offer folks larger salaries. That, of course, is making the large assumption that they themselves aren't hurting. Who knows.
I should point out though, that you shouldn't confuse Republicans and Bush when it comes to the bank bailouts. Bush pushed for it, the Democratic majority voted for it, and Congressional Republicans refused to support it, at least initially. It obviously passed but it's not like Republicans were thrilled over it. The first time through, when it failed, the votes were as follows:
Democrats - 141 yea, 94 nay
Republicans - 66 yea, 132 nay
4:05PM on Feb 5th 2009 by Alex Rudloff
3. good points - but how much of this can actually be tracked? did we actually un-freeze credit or was that the intention?
i think i chose my words very carefully. i don't equate republicans and bush with the bank bailouts. just the mess of shit for the 8 years prior that led us to it ;p
up until this election, i was republican. but it's not the party that it was - their ideals of fiscal conservativeness and smaller government have all but failed, nay, exploded. they became more concerned about god, guns, babies. about legislating morality. about being more exclusive. i think i had finally had enough when i could equate [mccain/palin] rallies to scenes from "V for Vendetta". but ok, we have got to move forward...
people are dying in this war. people are losing homes, jobs. it's not enough to just throw money at the problem without fully comprehending how it happened, why it happened, and all the parties involved. which is probably a little over the top, sure, because i'm sure its not possible to figure out who all was involved - but i'll settle for the how and why - and a solution to make sure it doesn't happen again.
and remember - obama didn't put the pork (perceived or otherwise) in the bill.
4:19PM on Feb 5th 2009 by seanosh
4. I haven't laid this at Obama's feet. In fact most of my postings have been very focused on Pelosi, who I consider to be at the root of all thats wrong right now in DC. Obama's job isn't to write the legislation, his job however does involve leaning on the party and applying pressure where he can. It is here that I find fault with him, mainly because he has yet to publicly chastise the "redemption" aspects of this bill. For all that talk about "politics of change," he sure does come across like all the other politicians right now.
It's hard to argue the state of the GOP, especially over the last 8 years. So hard, in fact, that I rarely bother trying. What I do know is that each party is made up of many factions. These factions fight for control of the party to set their own agenda's. Despite the differences that I've had with the Bush crowd, the Republican party is still a much better fit for someone like me than the alternatives. What little faith I have rests in the fiscal conservatives coming out of the wood work in Congress, in the new chairman of the party (steele), and in the ability for members of the party to speak out about the direction of things.
Let's hope the Republicans don't abandon conservative ideals this time around (or at least, I'll hope... ;)
4:28PM on Feb 5th 2009 by Alex Rudloff
5. This country has been on a path to destruction for years beyond my age which is 49. We are a nation of consumers. We support many dictators in the world so we as a nation may reap the rewards of THEIR cheap labor and vital resources. Then we call those foreigners who fight the expoitation of their labor and resources terrorists. We, in return, pay for those cheap goods in blood and higher taxes, not to mention the fact that we have pissed off 3 quarters of the world. All for the love of a cheap shirt or gallon of fuel. Then when the business world feels threatened by the aspect of higher fuel costs, they influence the government to open the borders with the hopes of bringing the cheaper labor here. Everytime I go to the voting booths, the number of unaposed candidates becomes longer. My choices no longer matter, the candidates migrate right to the special interest groups, in particular the unions. The conservatives spend the money faster than the liberals can tax us. You are so right about the fact that once the people have figured out that they can get money from their govt' the show is over for the rest of us. GOD help us all.
10:02PM on Feb 18th 2009 by Mark S.
6. Excellent points in the above article.
To continue the discussion on the stimulus bill, and to explore seanosh's desire for it to "just go away"... I have a few points to make.
First, the massive US-(China & Japan) trade cycle (imbalance) has ground to a halt. Because the US is not consuming, the Asians do not have any US dollars to invest in treasuries. This is in addition to China's simulative decision to put its massive population to work on bettering China, instead of making widgets for the US. And Japan’s sudden collapse makes them one of the crisis’s biggest victims, instead of a safe haven. China & Japan have suddenly become aware that they have lent too much to the US, and they cannot afford to foreclose. Clinton is over there right now attempting to convince them that our fates are intertwined.
Considering the above, and going to seanosh’s question: I see trouble ahead for the US's ability to borrow money to continuously fund deficits, bailouts and stimulus packages.
The real question is HOW BADLY DO YOU WANT THIS GOV’T STIMULUS? The US typically borrows money by selling treasuries. Total US tax revenue won’t even be enough to pay for the interest on our debt.
So, if the spending continues… This means a couple of things may happen.
1. The gov't may raise the treasury yield to attract investors and boost sales. This approach however has a rapidly diminishing value to the gov't as treasury prices will eventually reach a level so low that using treasuries to raise money will cease to be of value. This is especially true when China, the Saudi’s and Japan start selling. Also, as prices drop in the new auctions, the US taxpayer has to pay more interest on the dollars borrowed.
2. The gov't may give up trying to back federal notes with treasuries sold on the market and truly begin printing money. This will obviously lead to massive dollar destruction, hyperinflation, bursting of the treasury bubble, and general Armageddon. This is why the world is buying useless gold and silver. The benefits to this approach is that we can inflate our way out of our debts, keep people employed in the meantime, and finally reorganize in a kind of national or international Chapter 11 after everyone is broke. Let’s hope we don’t start over with massive regulation that stifles recovery or freedom.
4:13AM on Feb 24th 2009 by Trey F.