December 14, 2011 by David K. Sutton
Voting On A Perceived Moral Collapse Of Society
If you are considering casting a vote for any of the current Republican candidates next year you are either (a) not paying attention or (b) care more about perceived societal ills.
(a) If you are NOT driven by a perception of moral collapse of society – but – believe the economy is an important issue – then you must not be paying attention if you find yourself supporting a Republican for President.
What have any of the Republican candidates said to make you believe they are capable of fixing the economy? All I hear is less government and less taxes. That’s it. That’s the entire Republican game plan when it comes to fixing the economy. Simply do nothing. That’s not a plan at all. It reads more like unshakable ideology then it does a well thought out formula for fixing the economy.
Companies aren’t hiring because there is lack of demand for products and services. Families aren’t spending because they are either unemployed or underemployed, which leads to lack of demand. What breaks the cycle?
Tax breaks? Sure, tax breaks can help but tax breaks typically don’t offer the best bang for the buck when it comes to government stimulus spending. And yes, a tax cut is spending if it creates a deficit. Go back to math class if you can’t figure that out. Targeted spending in areas of infrastructure and education improvements have the best long-term bang for the buck. Sure, a tax cut might create a quick stimulus but the effect wears off just as quickly even if the tax cut remains permanent. Just look at the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. Those cuts are still in place. Where are the jobs? Instead, stimulus spending targeted at our nation’s assets like roads, bridges, energy, education, etc. have a long-lasting effect on stimulating the economy. They create jobs now and they create the ability for new jobs in the future as companies take advantage of these new and improved assets.
Less government? Well first, less government has to mean less federal and state workers, right? So that will have an offsetting if not an outright negative impact on employment and the economy. Does less regulation allow companies to expand and produce in ways they couldn’t before? Maybe. But if the demand isn’t there from consumers there’s no reason for companies to spend the money it would take to expand when instead they could just pocket their tax breaks to increase profits. And the relaxed regulations? Well, they might not go completely unnoticed. We might find that a lack of regulation for the purpose of getting the economy going might lead us to the next financial bubble. Does anyone honestly think we need less government regulation – particularly in the areas of banking and finance – after the 2008 financial disaster?
(b) If you ARE driven by a perception of moral collapse of society – and also – believe the economy is an important issue – then you must value those perceived societal ills as more important if you find yourself supporting a Republican for president.
This is known as “voting against your own economic interests”. Of course it’s not true for everyone in this category. If you are in the one percent – or in other words, wealthy – you don’t need to vote against your economic interests to have your perceived societal ills addressed. If you are wealthy then Republicans have your back on both accounts. Why anybody that isn’t wealthy, and more importantly why anybody that is struggling to find a good paying job – or a job at all – would vote for a Republican can only be summed up as voting against your own economic interests.
Why would someone do this?
If you feel strongly enough that there are people who – don’t behave like you – don’t look like you – doing things you don’t approve of, particularly on moral grounds – then it makes sense that you would support a presidential candidate who is sympathetic. You may be willing to overlook the fact that this presidential candidate supports economic policies that would negatively impact your own financial or employment situation if the trade-off means teaching these people a lesson in morality.
If you think I’m way off base then tell me why you support a Republican for President. If you say it’s because you are a conservative, have you looked at the Republican field? These are conservatives?