72 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
72 lines
3.4 KiB
Plaintext
BING-BING-BONG
|
||
==============
|
||
|
||
By M.L.Verb
|
||
|
||
It's easy to get confused by government programs. Everything seems so
|
||
convoluted.
|
||
|
||
To avoid fighting a war, for instance, the government spends tons of money
|
||
getting ready to fight a war. To fix a stinko economy, the government adopts
|
||
policies that throw a lot of people out of work. And so forth.
|
||
|
||
All of which should have prepared us for the president's new farm program. It
|
||
follows the same creative, roundhouse, triple-bankshot approach that allowed the
|
||
government to call rippping up neighborhoods "urban renewal."
|
||
|
||
Here, as we get it, is the deal: The government doesn't want farmers to grow
|
||
so much grain. So if farmers agree not to grow so much, the government will
|
||
give them free grain.
|
||
|
||
Did you follow the bouncing ball?
|
||
|
||
The problem is there is too much grain on the market and that drives down the
|
||
prices. So if farmers will only agree not to grow so much grain the government
|
||
will compensate them by giving them back some of the surplus grain that the
|
||
government took off their hands in the first place because they grew too much of
|
||
it.
|
||
|
||
Since the government always has to have a slick name for its programs, it has
|
||
decided to call this one "Crop Swap."
|
||
|
||
Incidentally, a pretty good rule of thumb is that the more clever-sounding the
|
||
name of a government program, the worse it will work. Remember WIN buttons?
|
||
Remember Model Cities? Remember "peace with honor?" Remember tax reform?
|
||
|
||
Anyway, what are the farmers supposed to do with the grain they didn't grow
|
||
but will end up with? Well, among their options, says the government, is to
|
||
sell -- put it back on a market that already has too much grain.
|
||
|
||
Look, you may just have to take my word for it -- as I have taken Mr.
|
||
Reagan's word for it -- that this all makes sense.
|
||
|
||
Whether it does or doesn't, it certainly reveals to us once again the
|
||
go-North-to-get-South thought patterns that seem to run rampant -- and sometimes
|
||
amok -- in the government.
|
||
|
||
Everything in representative government seems to be done by indirection, by
|
||
kicking something way over there on the theory that something way over here will
|
||
react in a certain way. If, for instance, the government thinks it's a good
|
||
idea for people to own their own homes, it doesn't go out and build homes and
|
||
sell them to folks. That would be the direct approach. Instead, it lets
|
||
home-buyers claim mortgage interest payments as a tax deduction.
|
||
|
||
The government, in fact, uses the entire tax structure to get folks to do all
|
||
kinds of things they normally might not -- like give to charity or put
|
||
insulation in their attics (where hardly anyone ever goes anyway) or invest in
|
||
failing businesses because they need the tax losses.
|
||
|
||
Government economists are the ones most likely to play this bing-bing-bong,
|
||
8-ball-in-the-corner-pocket game. They propose to raise government revenues by
|
||
cutting taxes. Bing-bing-bong. They propose to cure inflation by raising the
|
||
unemployment rate. Bing-bing-bong. And they propose to reduce the unemployment
|
||
rate by curing inflation. Bong-bong-bing.
|
||
|
||
The point of all this is that whenever you hear a government bong, you have to
|
||
figure that it was preceded by at least two bings; and a bing by at least two
|
||
bongs.
|
||
|
||
Which, no doubt, is what we should have expected from a president who --
|
||
remember? -- told us that a vote for John Anderson was a vote for Jimmy Carter.
|
||
|
||
|