Any business that now takes a tax cut, tax credit, or some other discount for participating in a government agenda must follow the consequences to their logical conclusion. Our current government will—as it did with student loans—eventually portray your service as the intermediary to their benevolence, and argue for public socialization of your business.
This is already happening with the Health Care Reform law. President Obama knew he needn’t completely nationalize health insurance immediately; by acting as an innocuous intercessor, the path quickly follows to make them a frustrating arbiter, and then finally an oppressive master. They must only convince enough people that it is the private company that serves as middle-man, rather the government, to consumer benefits.
After all (their argument may go), why work for a private corporation, who skims off the top to line their CEO’s pockets while receiving tax benefits, when you may receive employment or benefits directly from their benefactor? Why purchase oil from Chevron when the government may provide it at a reduced price? Why sell shoes when the government may distribute them more fairly?
The real question all along, however, should have been, why was the government artificially propping up complementary prices through their initial intervention? Education tuition costs have skyrocketed since the government’s first involvement in distributing loans; health care costs have skyrocketed since Medicare, Medicaid, and forcing emergency rooms to admit patients; automobile prices have risen drastically since the imposition of stricter emissions and safety standards.
The nationalization of student loans will give more people access to education, the demand for college enrollment will rise exponentially, and tuition costs will necessarily rise in direct correlation in order to maintain order and population ratio on campuses. At that point, the government will intervene once again in the name of fairness, eliminate the educational middle-man, and nationalize college education.
Every concession of liberty is one more authorization of tyranny. By allowing the government to restrict the liberties of banks, schools, and ultimately the consumer in their choice in the loan market, we have given them the authority to control one more aspect of our lives. If any middle-man should be eliminated from business it must be the one whose responsibility it is to protect the pursuit of wealth, not the one who provides the path.
Our major issue in this country is our two political parties. Our forefathers knew that a two party system would be our downfall and took steps to try to stop this type of politics, and thus anyone who seriously thinks that politics isn’t corrupt or slaves to Corporate America hasn’t not been paying attention. George Jr. will go down in History as one of the worst administrations in history and I could go on for hours showing why, but my point is that the Obama administration has offered nothing different (besides health reform, granted) and has in fact continued nearly every single Bush program. Obama has almost the same political donors and thus has the same pressures as Bush did. Health reform will turn out to be the most expensive and destructive waste of tax payer money ever. I just wish I could offer a better alternative for other frustrated people, but I can’t and those that think that the tea partiers are the future, remember that Sarah Palin is an important figure to them.
Your "major issue" has a cause as well. Firstly, our "winner-take-all" system invites a two-party system because there is no motivation for coming in second. (Unlike other styles of proportional democracy in which the parties receive a correlating percentage in parliament to the votes received, e.g., France, Germany, Burma, etc.) Secondly, the reason our two current political parties have retained their oligopoly on the ballot is due to campaign finance regulation. However, with the recent Supreme Court decision regarding that issue, that may change. Now that businesses are free to sponsor ads for candidates as they see fit, the choice between Democrat and Republican is potentially expanded, as "independent" candidates can seek patrons to further their cause rather than relying on individual donation.
There were certainly problems with Bush's administration, and there are certainly problems with Obama's administration. However, we must realize that they only became such widespread and devastating problems because the people allowed the Federal Government to become so enlarged and aggrandized so as to spread their influence among the people at large with the stroke of a pen. Had the precedent of a small central government been kept, their administrative bungles would have a minimal effect on the people.
Thank you for your comment.
Thanks for thoughtful, insightful, incisive writing. Please consider participating in the Hampton Roads Tea Party by making your work readily available through our various sites, including facebook. Contact me, if you wish, for discussion: norvell@hrteaparty.com.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by IsThisChangeWeNeed. IsThisChangeWeNeed said: Businesses beware! You may end up just like Sallie Mae. http://bit.ly/afDhB5 #tcot #studentloan #teaparty #education #hcr #freemoney [...]