Two Rants, Loosely Connected

JW,

I've been waiting to complain about this story for quite a while. As its headline suggests, the article predicts an upcoming war over whether or not to extend the federal income tax credit for first-time home buyers. Given the fact that Cash For Cars You're Sick Of . . . er, Cash For Clunkers . . . practically had to be killed with a silver stake through its heart, I'm predicting that the home buyers' credit doesn't go quietly. As anyone familiar with Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare can attest, it's almost impossible to stop giving people money once you've signed that first check. The word "entitlement," it seems, was chosen for a reason.

As was the bill in question, whose shades of optimism and egalitarianism ("Let's all own a home!") are meant to disguise its essential foolishness. A power grab and a misguided attempt at economic intervention (see "Socialism"), the tax credit is yet another example of the government favoring one group (those too young or poor to have bought a home before 2009) over another (everyone else). The fact that the arena in question (housing) is one in which artificial intervention already screwed us once only deepens the harm. Some lessons just refuse to be learned.

The problem, as usual, is that most people are either too simple-minded or too greedy to look beneath the surface of what appears at first glance to be a pain-free gift. Buy a house and get eight grand. Not a tax break but a credit--a check for $8,000 even if you didn't pay anywhere near that much in taxes (and many, many people don't). $8,000 is a tactile thing; its impact is immediately felt. Spending money that doesn't exist, though, is deceptive. There's no immediate consequence, and nothing but logic and a study of history reveals that the end of the road must be higher taxes, decreased benefits in other arenas, or national bankruptcy. Obama knows this, of course, as do members of Congress. But tomorrow's Americans can't vote in today's elections--they can only be ruined by them. Perhaps more than anything else, Conservatism is about understanding that fact.

-GM

GM,

Your entry describes perfectly why we need conservatism to have the loudest possible voice in our government. "Tomorrow's Americans can't vote in today's elections," nor can today's Americans vote outside of their own personal box (i.e. on principle), nor can today's Americans understand that scarcity is an actual, certain phenomenon that cannot be overcome no matter how "paperized" the monetary trail becomes. If individual citizens are to will themselves to believe that debt, whether personal or federal, can never hurt you, we need our decision makers to steer the ship using their knowledge to the contrary. This is why a dictatorship would theoretically be the most superior form of government if the dictator also happened to be the smartest, wisest, fairest, most moral person in the country. Popularity, usually gained by appealing to a sea of ignoramuses, wouldn't drive policy.

Meanwhile, the government of college football runs freely without having to worry about the opinions of its followers. Most people want a playoff, but the college football presidents insist on relying on computers and the opinions of buffoons, morons, and the archaic. Take a look at the latest coaches' poll. California, despite losing 42-3 to Oregon and having the same record, is ranked six spots ahead of Oregon! Penn State lost at home to a still-undefeated Iowa and remains four spots ahead of the Hawkeyes. In what world does that make sense?! The only reason Penn State and Cal remain ahead of teams with objectively better credentials is that these coaches value their own preseason rankings ahead of what has actually happened!!! And this s--t dictates post-season fates!

-JW