by Martin Heflin

Created on: October 26, 2009   Last Updated: October 27, 2009

This question is posted in the same manner as "have you stopped beating your wife?" Abuse of women is an abhorrent behavior; abusing the environment is as well. But the link between responsible expenditure of our tax dollars to stimulate economic growth, i.e. create jobs, and "environmental stability," is tenuous at best. The metrics upon which government policy should be based are myriad, but environmental stability is way down the list.

I know this stand sounds harsh: "my God, he hates the environment," I hear you say. No, I believe very strongly in environmental stewardship. But I also believe in minimizing the interference of the Federal government in our lives. Environmental stewardship is something that springs from the personal level. It comes from the awareness that we live in a fragile place and that we are responsible from our actions.

In that regard, we take care of ourselves and our communities. We can help educate and enlighten our neighbors, our towns and our communities on environmentally responsible techniques. For example, our neighborhood association recently set out to install fifty rain gardens in our area to help improve water filtration for our storm water drainage. We did not need a Federal carrot to do this...and we certainly did not need a Federal stick!

Now, what are the metrics that "government policy to stimulate economic growth" should be measured against? First and foremost, are more jobs created? More importantly, are they real, sustained jobs and not short-term "make-work" projects? Our economy has been fundamentally changing from a manufacturing economy to a consumer driven economy to a we-don't-know-what. But a "jobless recovery" is not good.

To have a sustainable, long term healthy economy, there needs to be balance and that is where our Federal policy makers can do well. We need a mix of industrial jobs, a strategic manufacturing sector, a vibrant trade and services sector and an unfettered entrepreneurial sector that will invent the jobs for the next generation. What we don't need are still more regulations and restrictions that hamstring our ability to put this economy back on its feet.

The second metric that needs to be met is whether the proposed policy increases our national debt. We are smothering our children's (and their children's) dreams in the crib as we pass along insane levels of debt to the next generation. It is a travesty! There should be a plaque hung in Congress that says "Not one penny more!"

If we want a sustained economic recovery, we will have to address the government programs that already exist that are nearing bankruptcy: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid...the list goes on. If we adopt policies that ignore these realities, we are whistling past the graveyard.

Finally, this question should be asked of any stimulative policy under consideration: "Is it Constitutional?" We now "own" automobile and insurance companies and seem poised to add healthcare companies to the communal pot. None of this is in our Constitution.

Our Founding Fathers, far from being outdated guys in breeches and wigs, knew full well the leviathan that an unchecked Federal government could become. Their wisdom is being ignored and it is being ignored at the peril of our freedom.

To conclude, is environmental stability a desired goal? Of course, but it needs to come from personal and community efforts, not imposed by a bureaucrat in Washington. Therefore, let's let stimulative policy focus on getting the economy moving again. If environmental stability results from the effort, it's a bonus. But environmental stability should not be the policy aim.

Learn more about this author, Martin Heflin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.