Mitt Romney and his campaign aides strongly believe policymakers can "help the American people" by laying off school teachers, police officers, and firefighters. The vast majority of the American mainstream doesn't seem to agree, but Romney has apparently convinced Rush Limbaugh.
"Nobody's opposed to cops or firefighters or teachers -- but they aren't private sector jobs," Limbaugh said. "They do not contribute to economic growth. Their purpose is otherwise. They have an entirely different purpose: public safety, public education, this kind of thing. But there's no growth in the economy. "If you add those jobs -- and if there aren't other types of private sector jobs added while at the same time we're adding to the fire rolls and the cop rolls and teachers -- we are reducing the size of the private sector. This is Marxism 101. It's also Ignorance and Sophistry 101."
There was no reason to think Limbaugh was kidding.
Look, I can't say with any confidence whether Romney and Limbaugh actually believe this stuff. Romney, in particular, has occasionally dropped hints that he's a closet Keynesian, but he can't admit it because his party has become too radical to tolerate the same economic model both parties have accepted for several decades.
But if Romney and Limbaugh actually, sincerely believe what they're saying, I'd just ask them to consider one question: do they believe teachers, police officers, and firefighters spend money?
I mean, really. Limbaugh argued with a straight face today that cops, firefighters, and teachers may work and contribute to society, "but there's no growth in the economy" as a result of their jobs. In other words, there are hundreds of thousands of teachers and first responders, but they never buy things and they never invest, so when they get laid off en masse, there are no economic consequences whatsoever.
Seriously, who's going to believe this? Exactly how many voters are going to hear this and think, "Yep, that makes sense"?
Leave a Comment:
Shooter, you're completely missing my point. On education - producing iPods is a productive, society benefiting activity, would you not agree? It's a private company producing a private good. In order to produce that good, the "job creator" - in this case Steve Jobs - needs an army of educated computer engineers, designers, programmers, etc. These people need the requisite knowledge to invent, design, and operationalize the manufacturing of iPods. That knowledge of computer programming and (at a more basic level math and reading skills that allow those people to acquire more knowledge on their own) was imparted by teachers, many of them public school teachers. The fact that said teachers are paid by taxpayers is irrelevant. They could have been private school teachers. The value is in imparting knowledge and skills that enable the invention and efficient production of products. It's the same thing as building a new robot that reduces the cost of producing iPods - in both cases capital that increases the efficiency of production is created. One is physical capital, the other is human capital, but they both are a well from which efficiency improvements and innovation can be drawn from. Creation of capital is what "job creators" do. It's also what teachers do.
On police officers - do you think the capitalist has any incentive to accumulate wealth if society doesn't protect his right to that wealth? Without cops and a legal system to protect property, there's no benefit to investing in production, because some lazy, thieving bastard will just steal from you what you earned. Adam Smith would agree with me on both points, I assure you.
Mark...,
Some people of that ilk are more flagrant than others in their doctrinaire pursuit of total privitization. Objective reality means nothing to people like that.
My friend just got her Masters in Science and contracts to University from where she graduated. She is extremely useful in computer software engineering and will be employed soon, being a teacher or consultant. Very useful product coming out of public education and applied to industry. She worked 25 years but left her career for full time education. She turns 50 later this year.
The public education system is where she got her skills and more people, businesses and employers need to acknowledge that without many, many public policies, we are going nowhere.
I see ads for these colleges selling degrees, but really. Accredited or making money? Not to diminish those educated there one second. I'm talking about privatization of education would care less about quality of education and more about making money.
Jefferson and Franklin promoted learning and innovation as American ideals. Why do people think it is good to put that away now? It is American pride to strive for top levels in science and innovation. That requires a good, public backed education, not buying a ticket and coasting along, expecting things to fall into laps.