[ back ]
Funding has upside, downside
(by Dave Lange - August 21, 2012)
Funding has upside, downside
“Where’s my bailout? Where’s my zero-interest loan? Where’s my federal subsidy? Where’s my state grant?”
It was my old pal, Mush Limburger, on the line. Gee, Mush, I didn’t realize you were in favor of all that government spending, which can lead to higher taxes, or worse, the mushrooming deficit?
“Of course I’m not, you dimwit. I’m just making a point.”
Sorry. Your point being?
“First, the Kenston School District gets a million bucks from the government, some of it federal stimulus funding, to put up a wind turbine on their campus, which they claim will supply 70 percent of their electricity needs. And now I see where they’re getting $250,000 through some so-called innovation grant from the government to install solar panels near the intermediate school to generate even more energy.”
I understand that you’re opposed to government spending, Mush, but won’t these investments now actually pay off in the long run by reducing government spending for electricity by the Kenston School District and thus save money for the local taxpayers?
“Of course, you knucklehead, that’s the problem. Whenever the government spends money to help one segment of the population, it hurts somebody else. I happen to own stock in a company that makes gadgets for the coal, oil and gas industries. If the government helps public schools generate alternative energy, profits from fossil fuels will go down, which will result in lower dividends for the good guys like me.”
I guess that adds up, Mush. What you’re saying is that the government shouldn’t have spent billions of tax dollars to build hundreds of thousands of miles of highways and countless bridges so that trucks and cars would use millions of barrels of oil, because that wasn’t so good for buggy-whip makers and blacksmiths.
“Furthermore, I read that the Ohio Department of Transportation has awarded a $1.7 million grant to the city of Solon to widen the intersection at SOM Center Road and Aurora Road so that traffic can move through more quickly, which will result in them using less gasoline. If they did that everywhere, just imagine the terrible impact it could have on oil-industry profits.”
So, Mush, I might assume you were in favor of President Barack Obama’s decision to bail out General Motors and the Chrysler Corp., not only because it saved hundreds of thousands of American jobs but also because American cars on average use more gasoline than imports, which is good for oil-industry profits and for stockholders like you.
“Absolutely not, you lamebrain. That’s a perfect example of how the government spent money to help one segment of the population, including the unionized auto workers, but it ended up hurting guys like that poor Al Zarzour, who had to close his Chevy dealership in Chardon, which, as he says in his commercial, is all the president’s fault.”
Actually, Mush, it was General Motors that had to decide whether to go into bankruptcy and possibly close all its dealerships or accept the bailout and close just some of them. But Mr. Zarzour is running political ads for Mitt Romney, who says the government should have let them just go bankrupt. Don’t you think that’s mighty hypocritical?
“I’m voting for the guy who likes bankruptcy.”
[ back ]
