In a recent article in my favorite newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, we have this quote about a family that cannot camp in Big Sur Nat'l park because a bridge to access it was stopped due to budget cuts in CA.
Dan and Vickie Coughlin of Torrance, Calif., face not camping in the park with their daughters, ages 10 and 13, for the first time since they were born. When they were advised they couldn't book reservations, "it just broke my heart, and my kids almost cried," said Ms. Coughlin.Apparently, this family hasn't been paying attention. California is accruing a $42b budget deficit. I think that we can all understand that word. We know when we have a deficit in our spending. Too much month at the end of our money. The Republicans, a sad minority in that state, want to cut spending and not increase taxes to cover this. The Democrats want to raise taxes and have only moderate spending cuts. It's baffling to me that gov't seems to be the only organization that thinks that raising prices in the middle of a recession is good policy.
Politicians across America are whining about declining revenues due to falling house prices and reduced consumer spending. They seem to think that gov't shouldn't have to tighten their belts and their purse strings just like everyone else. Of course this attitude is supported by folks with romantic notions of how life should be. We should not have to be restricted on the days that we go to the library or the park. Schools should never have to cut back on sports, music, or arts programs. So many programs and organzations grew up when times and money were good and now we feel like we cannot or should not have to live without them. There seems to be a huge disconnect between the services that gov't supplies and where the revenue for those services come from.
The second worst illustration of this romaticism is the whine from many gov't agencies that a cut in their budget will mean a cut in jobs. Duh. The gov't does not exist to create jobs but must of necessity create jobs to fill the need for services if money is available. If money is not available then the services must be terminated and the jobs accordingly.
The worst situation created by this romantic view that we should not have to cut any services or programs is that state governors are appealing for bailout money from the federal trough. Why is that a problem? Because the money they get for their states comes from taxpayers in other states who may not use or even be happy with the policies and programs of that other state. The bridge to Big Sur is a fine idea. I've been there. It's lovely but I don't want the federal gov't to go further into debt to pay for the bridge there and then force subsequent generations of people from Florida and Wyoming and Kansas to have to pay that debt. Parks are a luxury just like an expensive vacation for each of us. No matter what you think about illegal aliens, California's policy is to provide all of them with free health care at area hospitals. The costs associated with this policy is born by the taxpayers of California. Residents of Florida or Massachusetts or Texas have no vote in California policy. Should the state of California be given taxpayer money from residents of other states to pay for this policy that is contributing to this deficit? Apparently, the residents of California cannot afford this policy. Why shouldn't they be required to live within their means?
Romantically we may be nostalgic about the good old days when times were better. These are not those times. We have become a nation of whining two year olds demanding that things go back to the way they were.
http://wsj.com/article/SB123431135774170619.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&
