I would like to respond to Mr. Issac Bailey’s recent column, “The power of the middle-class consumer.”
In my last letter, “Ten bills for reclaiming America,” I wrote that my first bill would be, “no business, corporation, LLC, LLP, or nonprofit would receive any taxpayer money.” None.
I am not pro-business. I am pro-free market. There is a difference as anyone who has ever read Adam Smith can attest too. I agree with Mr. Bailey about our state’s next blunder, the giving of money that was awarded to homeowners to businesses as incentives. And I agree with Mr. Bailey’s statements about how consumers are the ones who make businesses profitable by being able to purchase goods and services. What is the difference, someone please inform me, between our state’s Commerce Department picking winners and losers in business with taxpayers’ money, and Obama’s picking of solar industries such as Solyndra?
Yes, Mr. Bailey, demand does drive job creation to a point. But how do we make sure, in your own words, that “as many people as possible have enough income to buy the products businesses are selling?” First, what is that amount of money? Can you give us an exact amount? Second, how do we get people that money before the jobs are created? Can you answer this with cold logic? I can’t and I doubt if anyone else can without a lot of foggy words.
Digital Access for only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
True, many people are trapped in homes worth less then their mortgage. But can you tell me who are the ones trapped through no fault of their own, and those who signed documents where they knew the information on them was false? Or what about those homes in areas with land-use restriction laws that created an artificially high home price? What about the National Realtors Association and the National Homebuilders Association?
I believe our state should release this money to the people who deserve it, and the state should not use it to pick winners and losers, the same way Republicans are saying Obama is trying to do. But how would that increase consumer spending? Surely you are not saying that people should receive money from a mortgage settlement to help pay their mortgages that are in the red, and then use that money to spend on other things? I get it, if people get that money then they can use the money they are spending on their mortgages to buy those other things, by freeing up their own money. Right? That is the same false logic that Planned Parenthood uses to say that even though they are federally funded, they do not use federal money to pay for abortions.
People who are already paying their mortgages seem to me not to need this money. But then again, people’s perspective today seems to be something for nothing. Or at the very least have someone else pay as much for it as you can get them too.
The writer lives in Myrtle Beach.