Well, there was no doubt that Henry’s usual calm was just a tiny bit ruffled. After his seeming to have agreed with me, I had thought my comment to him about what great things happen when government money arrives was a brilliant afterthought. Henry’s response, however, took some of the wind out of my sails and, all of a sudden, I didn’t feel quite so brilliant. In fact, I was a little peeved.
“Henry,” I said, with more than a hint of sarcasm, “are you telling me that you agree with me that certain public works are necessary but that building them can be defended only on the ground of necessity? At the same time, are you also telling me that they don’t provide jobs or add wealth to the community? How can this be? Can you provide an explanation for that?”
Henry remained silent. His brow was knit, so I knew he was thinking. I let him have the time. Then, he spoke. “Say, a bridge is built. If it is built to meet an insistent public demand, if it solves a traffic problem or a transportation problem otherwise insoluble, if, in short, it is even more necessary than the things for which the taxpayers would have spent their money if it had not been taxed away from them, there can be no objection.”
“Well, okay. I can get that”, I responded. “So, what’s your objection about jobs and wealth? Somebody has to put in the work to build it. That means jobs. Jobs mean payday for the workers. Payday for the workers means money coming in doesn’t it?” I thought to myself, “I’ve got him on the run with that one. There’s no way he can refute the logic.”
“But,” said Henry, “ a bridge built primarily ‘to provide employment’ is a different kind of bridge...”
Sensing a weakness in the argument, I pounced on that and, interrupting, said, “Wait a minute, Henry. How can a bridge be a different kind of bridge based only on the purpose for which it was built? A bridge is a bridge is a bridge, isn’t it?” I thought to myself, feeling good, “I gotcha on this one, Henry”.
A flicker of a scowl came and went almost instantaneously across Henry’s face. I could tell he was annoyed that I wasn’t getting the idea. “When providing employment becomes the end, need becomes a subordinate consideration,” he said. “‘Projects’ have to be invented.”
“So?” I asked.
Replied Henry, “Instead of thinking only where bridges must be built, the government spenders begin to ask themselves where bridges can be built. Can they think of plausible reasons why an additional bridge should connect Easton and Weston? It soon becomes absolutely essential. Those who doubt the necessity are dismissed as obstructionists and reactionaries.”
“Sheesh, Henry”, said I, out loud, while thinking to myself, “I hate to admit it but, he’s got a point. At least, I can see how finding more places to build more bridges could be pretty good job security for the government spenders.” I couldn’t let the point die there. I pushed on, seeking to find more weakness. “Henry, bridges are being built for that reason and there have to be good arguments advanced to justify the spending for them. What arguments in favor of spending ‘to provide employment’ do advocates offer to justify spending for that reason?
Henry got that look on his face again and, seeing it, I got a sinking feeling.
“Henry,” I said, with more than a hint of sarcasm, “are you telling me that you agree with me that certain public works are necessary but that building them can be defended only on the ground of necessity? At the same time, are you also telling me that they don’t provide jobs or add wealth to the community? How can this be? Can you provide an explanation for that?”
Henry remained silent. His brow was knit, so I knew he was thinking. I let him have the time. Then, he spoke. “Say, a bridge is built. If it is built to meet an insistent public demand, if it solves a traffic problem or a transportation problem otherwise insoluble, if, in short, it is even more necessary than the things for which the taxpayers would have spent their money if it had not been taxed away from them, there can be no objection.”
“Well, okay. I can get that”, I responded. “So, what’s your objection about jobs and wealth? Somebody has to put in the work to build it. That means jobs. Jobs mean payday for the workers. Payday for the workers means money coming in doesn’t it?” I thought to myself, “I’ve got him on the run with that one. There’s no way he can refute the logic.”
“But,” said Henry, “ a bridge built primarily ‘to provide employment’ is a different kind of bridge...”
Sensing a weakness in the argument, I pounced on that and, interrupting, said, “Wait a minute, Henry. How can a bridge be a different kind of bridge based only on the purpose for which it was built? A bridge is a bridge is a bridge, isn’t it?” I thought to myself, feeling good, “I gotcha on this one, Henry”.
A flicker of a scowl came and went almost instantaneously across Henry’s face. I could tell he was annoyed that I wasn’t getting the idea. “When providing employment becomes the end, need becomes a subordinate consideration,” he said. “‘Projects’ have to be invented.”
“So?” I asked.
Replied Henry, “Instead of thinking only where bridges must be built, the government spenders begin to ask themselves where bridges can be built. Can they think of plausible reasons why an additional bridge should connect Easton and Weston? It soon becomes absolutely essential. Those who doubt the necessity are dismissed as obstructionists and reactionaries.”
“Sheesh, Henry”, said I, out loud, while thinking to myself, “I hate to admit it but, he’s got a point. At least, I can see how finding more places to build more bridges could be pretty good job security for the government spenders.” I couldn’t let the point die there. I pushed on, seeking to find more weakness. “Henry, bridges are being built for that reason and there have to be good arguments advanced to justify the spending for them. What arguments in favor of spending ‘to provide employment’ do advocates offer to justify spending for that reason?
Henry got that look on his face again and, seeing it, I got a sinking feeling.
No comments:
Post a Comment