I saw a bumper sticker,"Criminals Don't have Budget Cuts", that capsulized the hyperbole that is generated by the special interests that don't want to face the financial crisis that all of us in the private sector have been dealing with for the past three years. The implication is that if we cut police services to meet budget requirements, the criminals will win. Actually, crime statistics have been down for the past (three years ), so I guess that criminals have been hit by the recession....but really, if we were to assume that criminals don't have budget cuts, then law enforcement shouldn't have them either? Would it necessarily follow that since law enforcement has a union, the criminals or criminals-in-prison should have a union? I am sure that someone would think that prison conditions are sub-par and there are certain benefits that are a right, no matter what a person's status....Oh, I think that in California, it is already happening.
So, back to the bumper sticker....is it really a matter of not cutting the budget, or raising taxes on one sector of the people (lowering their ability to balance their finances), in order to keep the financial standards of another sector (redistributing wealth, or is it distributing poverty to those who don't have a special interest). Who is going to represent the interest of the taxpayer? When are we going to realize that as long as we allow the public sector to grow, to overcome the private sector, there will not be enough of the private sector to pay for the public sector. Government does not generate revenue, it spends it! And it will always be willing to spend our children's and grandchildren's future to do it.
Don't blame me, this is just an observation....
