Name:
Location: Halstead, Kansas, United States

This is my seventh year at Halstead which is also where I live with my wife and my soon to be two year old daughter.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

An Interesting Way Of Explaining It

Here is the link to a reprint of a wonderful article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

If You're Paying, I'll Have Top Sirloin

It gives a wonderful metaphor about government spending and why I am extremely prudent about raising taxes and increased government spending. Here is a sample from the article:

This reminds me of a very strange restaurant. When you eat there, you usually spend about $6— you have a sandwich, some fries and a drink. Of course you'd also enjoy dessert and a second drink, but that costs an additional $4. The extra food isn't worth $4 to you, so you stick with the $6 meal. Sometimes, you go to the same restaurant with three friends. The four of you are in the habit of splitting the check evenly. You realize after a while that the $4 drink and dessert will end up costing you only $1, because the total tab is split four ways. Should you order the drink and dessert?


Read the entire article and see if it meshes with your views?

I would be especially interested to see how Brittany and Becky feel about it.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is Becky!
Through most of this article I found myself agreeing with this guy. I really don't want to pay for some other state's monorail if I don't have anything to do with it! But I also thought about some more stuff. What all does the government spending entail? Does it cover things like highway things and stuff for schools? I guess my point is that I do like to be fair and equal, but there also might be places that can't afford certain things that governemnt spending accounts for. If our state needed something from the government but couldn't afford it, I would want some help from others that could. Ah, but then not everyone can offer to help!! Agh, complex. Really though, I don't know too much about this issue to make a really concrete statement. I'm sure there are helpful things around me that other people's tax dollars helped pay for, but there has also been a LOT of government spending lately that I really don't agree with yet my taxes are still going towards those things. I'm all wishy washy. Ah, perhaps I should ask what the cut would really mean--like would spending be cut in all areas, certain areas...wow, I don't know if I'm even making sense!! ^^; I guess I would say that I'm in favor of the cut because there's been a lot of spending going on that I don't agree with (! I just said that a few lines ago), but then I say "but I don't even know what a cut in government spending would mean!!" So really, I could have just cut my post down to "How does government spending work and what would a cut mean?" before I said anything else, but I just spent a lot of time typing my thoughts and didn't want to delete them!
--> I'm also typing some new thoughts on that minimum wage post..

11:57 PM  
Blogger Mr. Warsnak said...

I like the article because I thinkk it makes a key point. People are always willing to spend more if its not their money. This is why I hate large government spending programs. There is a lot of waste because the program is spending tax money.

9:29 PM  
Blogger Coach Brown said...

Cool article. And very relevent since California give the most money to the Federal government, and receives very little in comparison. Include the fact that we have unusual funding matters (migrant education, illegal immigration, massive homeland security costs) and you find that our money is going to support most of you.
Not that I'm angry about that. I find that the fault lies with the States in this matter. If they had any guts at all, they would act upon their own accord and dare the Federal government to pony up. California has done this with marijuana and school standards. Arizona has done it with immigration. California and Massachusetts have gone ahead with homosexual marriage rights, contrary to federal government anger. Now the states have to be more rigorous with their demands. If California was smart, they would refuse to follow NCLB unless it was fully funded and take the wrath of the Federal government. In Federal monies issue would come out into the lime light and force polticians into an interesting corner.
And you come up with another problem with the post. How about the fact that the American people want more and better government services, but are unwilling to pay the bill for them? I'm talking beyond roads, schools and Medicare, which the public demands. How about an Iraq War tax?
I think your article would sound more acurate if the person was walking into a steak house and ordered Prime Rib. When he is told that it will be $20, the man screams that he will get the manager fired. The manager then relents and gives the customer a $20 Prime Rib for $5. Now tack on the rest of the story your article stated and we are going somewhere.

10:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Free Web Counter
Web Site Counter