Best Governor In America: We’re Heading Toward A Savior-Based Economy

Spot-on analysis from one of the few Republican governors in America who is keeping his head amidst all this stimulus mania:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – As many state and local officials clamor for their share of the billions of dollars in federal aid in the stimulus bill under consideration in Washington, South Carolina’s Republican governor is sounding a note of dissent about federal efforts to help the economy.
“A problem that was created by building up of too much debt will not be solved with yet more debt,” Gov. Mark Sanford said Sunday, making a reference to the federal deficit spending that will likely finance the federal stimulus package.
“We’re moving precipitously close to what I would call a savior-based economy,” Sanford also said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
The South Carolina Republican said such an economy is “what you see in Russia or Venezuela or Zimbabwe or places like that where it matters not how good your product is to the consumer but what your political connection is to those in power.”
“That is quite different than a market-based economy where some rise and some fall but there’s a consequence to making a stupid decision,” Sanford said after pointing to the powers granted to the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to help deal with the current economic crisis.

Sanford is exactly right on the two biggest dangers of the “stimulus” and bailouts in general.
When we look to the government to solve our problems, or to bail us out of poor decisions (such as taking or making bad loans), we lose our independence. And we lose our freedom. But it seems like everyone wants the government to bail them out. People want government health care. People want the government to re-build their homes after natural disasters. And even the government itself wants bailouts as the states turn to the federal government to bail them out of their self-inflicted budgeting disasters. Rather than being self-reliant, we are becoming government-reliant. And a government that’s powerful enough to give us everything, or bail us out of anything, is powerful enough to take everything away (to paraphrase something someone else said).
Also, when we try to ban failure from our economy by refusing to let bad-actors in the economy fail, we try to ban the very thing that makes our economy so strong in the first place. Companies (or even state budgets) that can’t survive without a bailout don’t deserve to survive. Because they are unsustainable. And by bailing them out we only ensure that their unsustainable bas practices continue.
We may be able to play this bailout game for a while yet. We may be able to play this game where the federal government pretend like it has an endless supply of resources with which to prop up every out of control state budget and every unprofitable business model for a while yet. But we pay for everything we get, and every bailout or “stimulus” that gets passed is either going to be mean more tax burden for us (if our leaders are at least responsible enough to raise taxes now to pay for them) or more tax burden for our children and grandchildren (if we’re irresponsible and just allow all this new spending to explode our national debt).
Either way, we’re not solving anything. We’re just creating more problems for ourselves.

Tags: ,


«
»
  • http://Array Rezistik

    Robert108, how does it feel to know you’re simply the conservative version of dino?

    Basically two sides of the same fanatic coin. I can’t tell if either of you are trolls or not half of the time and you both spend the same amount of time mocking anyone you debate with.

  • robert108

    BTW, the Sherman AntiTrust Act is a great example of how the govt always makes things worse when it tries to rig markets to get a predetermined outcome. All the corporate excess you lefties squeal about today is the unintended consequence of the govt trying to guide and control the growth and power of business.

  • jimmypop

    how is this guy not the leader for the pubs on a national level?

  • robert108

    The major problem is that we allowed these corporations to grow to theses sizes and become too large to fail without millions going without jobs.

    Wrong again! There’s no “allowing” here at all; it’s a matter of success in business. It’s called the Law of Supply and Demand.

    I actually for the most part agree with free market economics. Except for the “free market” part. My problems come from corporations. Corporations were created by the federal govt to curb the power of successful businesses, which were becoming more powerful than the govt. They are actually quasigovernmental entities. These are lead by CEO’s Wrong! The CEOs are employees of the shareholders. that are greedy with no connection to their labor so if they can cut and run with major personal profits it is unimportant to them what happens to people at their bottom. Wrong again. CEOs are like all other employees, in that they have contracts which specify their pay with bonuses. You have been brainwashed by the class envy rhetoric of the Marxist Dems/MSM.

    You should really get an education in economics before you try to pontificate about it.

  • robert108

    …but they still make disproportionate amounts of wealth and don’t really have to report to anyone…

    Two more wrong statements! Your opinion on what is or is not “disproportionate” has nothing whatsoever to do with economic reality, and CEOs, as the employees of the stockholders, have to report to them. You really should read up on some basic business econ before you humiliate yourself any further.

    You talk about these businesses being succesful and that is how they become corporations and then you say corporatioins are quasigovernment businesses created by the government…in the same post. Are you schizophrenic or just mentally incapable?

    Sorry; I underestimated your ignorance of the subject. I’m not going to school you on economic history, because you’re not worth the effort, but you should read up on the subject before you spew any more inanities here. Start with the Sherman AntiTrust Act.

    Here are a couple of hints: Not all businesses are incorporated, and when one wants to incorporate, one has to go to the govt.

  • eneils Bailey

    Either way, we’re not solving anything. We’re just creating more problems for ourselves.

    Governor Sanford, to his credit speaks to the truth, while pulling no punches.

    Usually, Sunday’s are for the most part, news free days for me. But, I did notice that CNN seem to be beating up on him for this comment, earlier today.

    Found his statement out on the internet, agreed with it.

    Found the CNN story out on the internet.
    They clipped, snipped, and jipped it to the point it lost all context..

  • docdave

    Government control of industry is one factor that brought down the communist regimes in middle Europe. After communism fell, one of the first things the former communist countries did was try privatize their industry. That was not easy because there wasn’t any private capital and no stockholders. In Czechoslakia, they distributed and sold coupons which granted the holder a share of a company. That became their first common stock shares!!

  • Rezistik

    The major problem is that we allowed these corporations to grow to theses sizes and become too large to fail without millions going without jobs.

    I actually for the most part agree with free market economics. My problems come from corporations. These are lead by CEO’s that are greedy with no connection to their labor so if they can cut and run with major personal profits it is unimportant to them what happens to people at their bottom.

    When these people get money their ideal spenditure is upon themselves no upon their corporations and hiring more people this is why we have our current situation.

    If we had an economy based solely upon smaller businesses then free market would be absolutely the best system.

    For me I believe the internet allows this. Deviantart.com, youtube, myspace, designedbyhumans.com all of these allow for single individuals to support themselves without connecting to a large volatile corporations. And any person with a small amount of start-up money and a skill can peddle it on the internet.

    I believe this is the future of commerce and the definition of a freemarket.

  • Rezistik

    I actually for the most part agree with free market economics. Except for the “free market” part. My problems come from corporations. Corporations were created by the federal govt to curb the power of successful businesses, which were becoming more powerful than the govt. They are actually quasigovernmental entities. These are lead by CEO’s Wrong! The CEOs are employees of the shareholders. that are greedy with no connection to their labor so if they can cut and run with major personal profits it is unimportant to them what happens to people at their bottom. Wrong again. CEOs are like all other employees, in that they have contracts which specify their pay with bonuses. You have been brainwashed by the class envy rhetoric of the Marxist Dems/MSM.

    Right all dems are marxists…Yes CEO’s are employed by stockholders but they still make disproportionate amounts of wealth and don’t really have to report to anyone…

    You talk about these businesses being succesful and that is how they become corporations and then you say corporatioins are quasigovernment businesses created by the government…in the same post. Are you schizophrenic or just mentally incapable?

    While CEO’s are employed by shareholders…they lead the company. The shareholders have say in what happens on most decisions but the CEO gets to make a good portion of these decisions as well.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development