When people think of a good government, they usually think of an entity that tries to have a positive effect on its constituents. But how can it have a positive effect if it lays out laws for the people and then lays out an entirely different set of laws for itself? Thus, the government (in this case, the American government) side-steps the very institution structured to produce peace and law-abiding citizens in the country.

There are many problems that I find in this country but because there are so many I want to mainly focus on the financial aspect, especially that of printing money and debt.
Marriage and family experts often tell parents the key to successful parenting is to be consistent in what they say and do. When people tell us to do something, it generally helps when they are abiding by the same principles. How would you feel if your pastor told the congregation not to commit adultery, but you see him checking in at the local motel with someone who is not his wife? If a government is to have the faith and loyalty of the people, they cannot say one thing and do another.

Couple arrested for counterfeit

In December 2010 in Waco, Texas, Christina, 30 and David Turner, 31 pleaded guilty to the passing of counterfeit U.S. currency on July 29 at a store in Hill County, Texas. Christina was sentenced to one year and one day in federal prison, two years of supervised release after completing her prison sentence, and will pay $1,000 in fines, $150 in restitution and a $100 special assessment to the court. David received three years and 10 months in prison with two years of supervised release, a $1,000 fine, $150 in restitution and a $100 special assessment to the court –– all because they passed a counterfeit $50 bill at Dixie’s Little Stop convenience store.

Government prints more money

In the economic crisis of 2008, the government bailed out several companies and banks. Some of that money came from newly-printed money. The government decided that certain businesses couldn’t fail and so, after using tax money, turned on their printing press and went to work. But they didn’t just print $50 bills, no the total bailout money was around $700 billion. The difference between the government and the Turners? The government used a fancy term called “monetizing the debt,” also known as “quantitative easing” or the act of stimulating the economy by inputting more currency while also starting an inflationary market. According to Peter Schiff, C.E.O. and Chief Global Strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc., borrowed or printed money destroys. “Unfortunately, the nation is in the grips of a delusion that money derived from these sources has the power to heal. But history has clearly shown that borrowed or printed money only has the power to destroy.”

The Turners received several years of prison for using a counterfeit $50 bill, yet the government has printed millions of dollars when they found themselves in a bind. It’s one thing when the government needs to replace old bills, but it’s another thing to bail themselves out from problems that they have caused. Some would say that the Turners committed a crime, yes they did, but the only reason the government didn’t commit a crime is because they have the power to say that it’s not a crime. Instead of admitting that they made a mistake they tried to fix it by borrowing and printing money. Maybe the Turners found themselves in a bind. Maybe they had no food or made a financial mistake, the government did the same yet they had the power to get away with it.

Government permitted to increase debt

This leads into another issue, the government is allowed to spend money it doesn’t have. Credit cards are perfectly acceptable in the current society and many things can be attained via a credit history. But when people start maxing out their credit cards and are unable to pay them off, it becomes a problem and they either have to declare bankruptcy or their credit history is scarred for years. Unlike the everyday citizen, when the government goes “belly-up” as stated above, they can use tax-payer resources or print money.

Yet for the government it is acceptable to spend money it doesn’t have. Many states have huge deficits even after dipping into tax money because they have refused to reign in their spending. Why can’t I do the same? Why, when I feel like buying a brand new car, even though I have no means to pay for it, take it and either write the dealership an ‘IOU’ or go home and turn on my printer? The government is abusing its authority by overspending and not using tax-payer money correctly. I work hard for my money and while taxes are necessary I do not think that they should be used for some congressman’s retirement of about $169,000 a year–roads and buses, yes but unneccessary things, no.

Schiff provides thoughts on bailout

In his article “The Truth about Bailouts”, Peter Schiff takes issue with the 2008 bailout. “Like any bailout, our foreign creditors should consider the moral hazard of rewarding bad behavior, and the old investment adage of not throwing good money after bad. By continuing to ‘lend’ us money, the world is merely delaying the necessary rebalancing of our upside-down economy. By continuing to subsidize our reckless and out-sized consumption, the world merely delays the inevitable rebalancing and exacerbates the underlying problem at the root of the current global financial crisis.”

Government holds double standard about money

If the government doesn’t want people to print money illegally, maybe they should think twice about holding a double standard. Or maybe, Roosevelt and Nixon should not have taken the U.S. off of the gold and silver standards. Then, the government could not print money that’s not backed by the amount of commodities in their possession, and the government couldn’t spend money they don’t have.

People are getting angry at this blatant double standard and they may take their issues right to the streets and riot. When people feel like they’ve lost everything and have nothing to lose, they become unpredictable. The LA riots started because one man was beaten beyond what was allowable and yet the cops that committed that injustice were either given minor punishments or let go completely. People were so enraged at the court’s ruling that they took it violently to the streets, invoking their issue with the court and cops on innocent people. Was it right of them? Absolutely not, but when their is such blatant injustice people get angry and do not always take the moral high ground. Pretty soon the government may have its hands full — and it won’t be with the bills that they just printed.