Suddenly taking taxpayer money invites control
With the news of the Obama administrations new spending rules for companies that take taxpayer money, I find it ironic that this policy will probably be embraced with open arms but any request of responsibility from individuals on the permanent government dole is often called racist, elitist, and sometimes unconstitutional.
Take, for example, the continual debates on welfare and birth control. In the early ’90s, a Kansas legislator tried to allow for women taking government aid to have Norplant injections, paid for by the government, and be given $500 to do so. It was voluntary, but the ACLU called it “unconstitutional coersion.”
Back in 2003, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) of Minnesota tried to prohibit junk food, like candy bars and sodas, from being purchased with food stamps. Anti-poverty groups called the proposal a “mean-spirited intrusion into the cupboards of the poor.”
Now, however, taxpayers and the government are crying out to limit executive pay and bonuses and restrict conferences of companies that take taxpayer funds. Every day, there is another purchase scrutinized (Citigroup’s jet, BofA’s Super Bowl party, Wells Fargo’s Las Vegas junket) by the media. Most stories on Wells Fargo junket leave out the fact that it was one of the banks forced to take TARP funds, even though it didn’t need it at the time, or face being left out in the cold if the time came that it did need help. Paulson didn’t want TARP-funded banks to be seen as less solvent than other institutions.
At the same time this is going on, the House version of the “Stimulus” package includes billions of dollars in “making work pay” tax credits that go to people who don’t actually pay any income taxes once credits are applied (although one Senator is trying to change that). They are being given “free” money and being told to SPEND it, and not just on needs. Go out and stimulate the economy — buy a TV or a new refrigerator. Heaven forbid they would do something responsible with the money, like save it or pay down debt. It would be elitist to suggest that!
Why is it OK to for taxpayers to decide how a company can spend its money but not an individual? As even Obama himself has pointed out, it is not OK to have two separate standards.
Update: Allah at Hot Air describes Obama’s plan as a “populist masterstroke,” citing the fact that these rules are not retroactive and have plenty of loopholes. He’s spot on, as most won’t read past the headlines.