Taxes vs Free Choice Spending

I stopped by a Wendy's the other day to treat myself to a Double Stack.  I haven't had one in a year or year and a half since, from out of nowhere, the price went from the 99-cent menu to $1.39.  OK, $1.39 won't break the bank, but I refused to buy one on principle--a 40% increase is worthy of protest/boycott.  I finally got over that and pulled in to Wendy's for a Double Stack.  Whoa!  Time for protest/boycott again.  The price is now $1.99!  It doubled in fewer than two years or so.

So, some critics might argue, "That's the free market system.  Companies jack up prices as high as they can as long as there are still customers."  That, though, leads to the difference between free market spending and taxes.  If the price of a good gets too high, there are options.  I can still buy the good if my desire and ability to pay allow me to do so.  Or I can choose to boycott or not buy it.  If the good, say gasoline, is a virtual necessity I can still cut back on my driving, ride my bike more, stay home, or even buy a car that gets better gas mileage.  If it's another product for which there is a substitute, I can substitute--say, a grilled onion cheddar burger at McDonald's instead of a Double Stack.  (In fact, I can get two grilled onion cheddar burgers for the price of one Double Stack.)  That is, in the free market, I get to choose.

Taxes, of course, are a completely different matter.  I have no choice.  Well, I do--I can opt not to pay them.  Of course, then I am subject to fines or jail time.  When perhaps well-meaning (I'm being generous here; give me some credit!) politicians raise taxes on me, I must pay them.  And, other than try to vote the bums out, I have no voice in higher taxes.  (There are enough low-information voters to prevent that from happening too often.)

Speaking of well-meaning politicians.  Some, but not all, of the ethanol-backers in DC must have had good intentions.  Others, of course, are set on their own arrogant, elitist agendas, regardless of the impact on others.  But the ethanol legislation or, rather, the willful delegation of power to the EPA has had a very deleterious effect.  First, many auto engines are damaged by ethanol, esp cars built before 2001.  And, with the amount of ethanol soon-to-be-EPA-mandated to 15%, more auto engines will be in danger.  So will boat, snowmobile, lawn  mower, etc. engines.  Among other things, the moisture the ethanol creates leads to corrosion, rust, etc., not real good things for engines.  Second, ethanol isn't very efficient.  I guess I've read that it is 25% to 35% less efficient than gasoline.  So, all those claims about drivers saving at the pump are bogus.  Yep, look at the prices.  Gasoline is about $3.30 a gallon today (at least here it is); ethanol was in the neighborhood of $2.90.  In order for ethanol to really save money, it's price would have to be $2.50 or less.  Cars need to use more.  And I don't know what all that extra burning does to the atmosphere, but it doesn't seem good.  Third, with 40% or more of US-grown corn going to producing ethanol--as mandated by the EPA, not our elected officials--prices of other foodstuffs (not just corn) have skyrocked.  Beef, pork, and other livestock fed with corn has seen almost an 80% increase in the past half dozen years or so.  For the average working family of four, that's about a $2000 annual increase in its grocery bill.

I still love the two comments last week.  From a TV talking-head MD, about ObamaCare, "It won't make us healthier and it won't cut costs. But it's a great program."  Yep.  And an editorial cartoon had Obama saying, "Let's make a product that doesn't work and then make everyone buy it."  Yep.

I still want to know how the Tigers lost to the House of David team??????