It's Easy To Argue Against Opponents That Don't Exist

Clark at ShowMeProgress puts up a laughable challenge - he's asking Tea Party folks to berate Ed Martin for suggesting infrastructure jobs are always a bad idea.  This is an easy one.  Clark, like most left-liberals, thinks that the Tea Party hates all government.   He's like those sad commenters on newspaper sites who equate libraries, roads, and fire stations to socialist policies.

Luckily, limited government conservatives believe no such thing. We believe that as the Constitution is the legal document that governs the relationship between the federal government, the states, and local government, that the federal government should focus its attentions on those powers and responsibilities it explicitly is charged with in the Constitution.  You know, things like money supply, war, protecting the borders, and passing spending bills. 

Did you know that?  Did you know that spending bills are supposed to be passed each year?  Someone forgot to tell the Democrats that, as they refused to consider legislation because it could be used against them in the elections.  Frackin' cowards. But I digress. 

Ed did make a mistake.  Only a politician would waste their time on a washed up old lying hack like Jaco - going on the show may seem brave, but the sooner Jaco gets set out to pasture, the better. But that's also neither here nor there.  Here's the Jaco interview Clark is screaming about. 

JACO: Would you have been in favor of those kind of things -- maybe a son of the WPA -- to put people to work immediately on public-sector construction jobs.

   MARTIN: Emphatically yes.  I mean, emphatically yes.  And I think places like Highway 21 in Jefferson County, they're desperate to finish the roads. The federal government has a role to play, and I think you and I can talk about how big or small the role is. But public level infrastructure, I think we should have done that. We would have put, put people together. I mean, we built the Zoo, we built the memorials.  We should have said -- and even during the WPA, we sometimes said -- if workers need 20 hours each to build a 40 hour because we have two men that need a job, in this case two men and women, we'll split it up. You get 20 each. I'm emphatically for that.

A couple of points.  One - the argument against the stimulus was that it was wasted - sent to back state budgets who refuse to rein in spending during boom times, and targeted towards unions and other Democratic allies.  The stimulus was never targeted at repairing decaying infrastructure - that was the sound bite used to sell it. 

Two - if the purpose was to rein in unemployment, and the money was going to be spent, it would have been far preferable to spend the money on actual infrastructure, but stimulus spending by it's very nature isn't designed to work like that.  It was never going to work, both because the funding isn't set up to move quickly, and also because shovel-ready jobs don't exist.  You don't have a large supply of men, yes men, who can pick up shovels and go build Hoover Dam.  It's not 1932.

Three - Do they not read?

The federal government has a role to play, and I think you and I can talk about how big or small the role is.

The only way this become controversial is if you believe that Tea Party folks all believe that anarchy is the best way to run a nation.  Of course, this is exactly what Clark believes, because he's intellectually lazy.  He, and Hot Flash, and Willy K are progressives because they feel good about it. They actually say things like Republicans are selfish, and that's the only reason they don't vote to spread the wealth.

Martin says there is a role for the federal government to play, and the size of that role is debatable.  Yep - that's about what everyone believes.  And if you're going to spend borrowed money to keep people employed in a brutal recession, you might as well spend it on things that improve the community, and not just throwing cash at state governments unwilling to be responsible spenders themselves.

Here's an example of $500,000 of stimulus cash spent in Missouri.

Let's see here.  How much money did Robin Carnahan's office get from the stimulus?

  $500,000 to create a picture book showing people in state government.

$100,000 for initiative referendums.

$50,000 for absentee ballots.

$21,395 for provisional ballots.

Each of these was a backstop for state spending.  Each of those projects was authorized to help the state of Missouri spend national funds instead of state funds on state projects.

None of this bettered the state from an infrastructure standpoint.

Is there a role for the federal goverment in infrastructure?  Yes.

Does it need to be debated and discussed?  Yes.

Does that make every federal expenditure socialist?  No.

Does ShowMeProgress actually have any real questions, or do they lack the intellectual firepower or honesty to actually understand and report on what politicians say instead of creating strawmen who live only in the fevered imaginations of those who aren't paying any taxes of note anyway?

Comments

[Cammie Novara]

When I navigated to this hilarious Yes We Scam! B.S. We Can Believe In! Obama Approval Plummets Hubpages Hub I said that 24th State's readers really have to be able to discuss this link: http://hubpages.com/hub/Yes-We-Scam-BS-We-Can-Believe-In-Obama-Approval-Plummets

[stlouisgal]

I've been following a Facebook thread from a McCaskill post. I received the same leftie argument in response to a Porter Stansberry letter on why businesses fail...Stanberry's belief is that government is strangling growth by taxes and regulations. The left's response to the article "This is why there are no Jobs in America" (access here):

http://www.dailywealth.com/1449/This-Is-Why-There-Are-No-Jobs-in-America

"I Don't see the point in painting the relationship between business and government as a business partnership. It's not supposed to be one. The situations are nothing alike. And I don't understand why you didn't list the ways businesses benefit from government. Wait, yes I do! Because you hate government! You believe that the government that governs best is the government that doesn't govern at all".

Maybe I'm as silly as Ed Martin thinking we could have a conversation, or have the writer back up his contentions...I've now asked this question three times in different postings:

"Hellooooo....would someone PLEASE answer how businesses benefit from government? The premise was put out there that government benefits businesses. How so? Also, the "partnership" is one insisted upon by the government. But it seems to me the government is the parasite and the business is the host. Please explain to me what the government provides business that is a positive. The only possibility I can come up with is tariff protection for US manufacturers.
Anybody have any others? I'm just asking Rob for more examples. He brought it up. What are the situations of business and government? If the government is not supposed to be in a partnership as Rob indicates, then it would seem the government is DICTATING to the business. If they are nothing alike, then perhaps their spheres shouldn't be intersecting as much as they are".

I STILL have not received an answer. Do you think Rob might write for ShowMe Progress as well? Could Clark and Rob be the same person? Same argument, conservatives don't want any government at all.

Perhaps the answer to my question is above his paygrade. But as this was posted on McCaskill's site for questions to ask the senator, I am certain I will receive an answer from her staff shortly. Yep.

[Jim]

For Democrats, government is a partner in the months leading up to an election, and a master in the months and years after.

[chemjeff]

Well, government does benefit business in certain ways. Government provides for the common defense so that businesses don't have to hire private armies to protect against foreign invaders. Government provides laws against fraud, and an independent judiciary to resolve claims of fraud, so that people are confident to spend their money in the marketplace. These are things that about 99.999% of all conservatives and Tea Partiers alike would agree with as legitimate roles of government. These also do NOT require confiscation of 50% of the business's profits in order to implement.

This is what I have found when arguing with your typical liberals about government: They regard government as a symbol, not as it really is. To them government is the defender of the weak, healer of the sick, savior of humanity, in this abstract rarefied form. That's NOT what government really is, but that's what is in their heads that government is. So when conservatives come along and complain about government waste or government corruption, they think you are attacking the SYMBOL of government rather than the actual government itself. It is really hard to get liberals to recognize the difference between the actual, real government that exists - inefficient, corrupt, heavy-handed - and the symbolic government of Truth, Justice and the American Way that resides in their head.