Redneck Review!!
5/25/15
Well, we are told by the Tribune this week, that our state special session did pass SB 1067, and I guess we all knew it was going to happen! The "subsidy seduction" involved, the many millions of dollars, once again proved to be the clincher. All I can say is that I commend Sherry Nuxoll and the very few others who stood their ground and voted "NO!" And of course, the proposal will only become effective if the rest of our states, some 25 still, all cave under the pressure, and the lure of the financial "seductive subsidy" involved. I am still thinking that several will hold out, and must honestly say that it was my hope that Idaho would be one of the holdouts!
History teaches blunt lessons to those who pay enough attention to it. And some of the most obvious are the dismal failures that experiments in the past with socialist governments have been. Plain old common sense tells us that shifting responsibility to a government for services which earlier have been taken care of by ourselves is destined for disaster. It's really very simple! When it comes time to allocate dollars on projects proposed, it makes most sense that the money will be spent more carefully by those who own it, than by those who are in charge of just giving it away. Yes, it's nice if a "grant" of some kind or other is obtained! But that means that the cost, in whole or in part comes from another source. Probably, our grandchildren!!!
Now I know I am on very dangerous ground here! Because virtually every town and every government unit seeks grants of some kind or other. And we might even go so far as to say they depend on them. And I will be the first to admit that it is very nice and comforting to be the recipient of programs that benefit us while being paid for by someone else. I will even admit that I have been the recipient of such largess!
But that only begs the question! Just think about it! How can it be economically efficient for a person, or a community, or a town, to finance any project with money from somewhere else, if that same unit would not cough up the bucks themselves?
I cite just one quick example. Decades ago, I served on a committee in our little town of Cottonwood determined to put in a public swimming pool. Not wanting to FINANCE IT COMPLETELY, we applied for a grant. We were offered one, but turned it down! The specs required, and the conditions mandated, pushed the cost so high that our required half was more than it would have been had we paid for it all ourselves! Riener's Concrete told us the cement alone the grant required was enough to hold up army tanks! Thus, forced with that cost figure, we dropped the project and turned down the grant! But... LESSON LEARNED! Any entity which gives away money not their own, has every right, if not even an obligation, to attach conditions to the gift!! And don't think that SB1067, if adopted, won't do the same!
And is that not exactly what we experience today with government regulations that irritate at times? Usually they come hot on the heals of the money that was given, or "Help" that was offered! Who possibly could have guessed 100 years ago, that our federal government could so aggressively be involved in education, in marriage, in housing, in insurance demanded, in racial quotas met, in wolves protected, in wedding cakes provided,... etc., etc., etc.!! None of which can be found as a power give to government by our Constitution! But that is what a socialist transfer of responsibility brings! And SB1067 is just more of the same! Just wait!!!
Jake Wren

Home

Classified Ads