Ferrernomics

I went to the store yesterday to buy some Busch beer (work with me here, beer fans). Better than ten years ago, Busch beer cost $6 a six-pack, which was a reasonable price- in fact, lower than it had been in years. The president though, decided that Busch beer- the money-maker- should be priced at $4 a six-pack  for ever and ever, amen. Congress said "no" to the forever and ever part of it and set the price at $4 for 10 years. The president and his buddies were NOT happy about this. Evidently, they're hard to please.

Chips and pretzels, two things that go well with Busch, sky-rocketed in price! This was great for the manufacturers of chips and pretzels but not so much for the folks who liked those things. Thank God- or someone who sitteth on the right side of God- that Busch was so cheap! It got to a point where we were borrowing money to pay for chips and pretzels but- what the heck- this was back in the day when deficits didn't matter! For eight years deficits didn't matter. It's just coincidental that they matter now. I think the moritorium on them NOT mattering must expired or something....

Anyway, with the costs of chips and pretzels exploding and effecting all other products, it got to a point where it was ridiculous to have what I'll call The Busch Cuts, in effect, cutting income while expenses rose. A smart guy would say: "Hey, the price of Busch before the Busch Cuts was very reasonable and in these tough economic times we need to return to that". He might also add that: "To offset lots of money going out you need more money coming in!"

Well that makes sense. It makes sense unless one is Fox-trained in Reaganomics. This philosophy seems to state that, if you don't have enough money coming in, you need tp stop spending to make up for it. This is interesting in a stupid sort of way in that it makes sense if you don't think too much about it. Yes, it's always good to stop unnecessary spending in any situation but, it's not always clear to people what is unnecessary and what is promoting the health and general welfare of  women, children and old folks. Sometimes it looks like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic simply because it is.

The Fox-trained among us say that repealing The Busch Cuts is a "tax increase" and therefore a "bad thing!" Ferrernomics points out that, much like a sale at the beer store, The Busch Cuts are....like a sale at the beer store. That means *temporary*. Let's say that the beer store decides to have a special price on Heineken beer. It usually costs $14.99 for a 12 pack (nice price for a great beer) but, to promote it, for three days- Friday,  Saturday and Sunday ONLY- the price will be $10.99. That's the way sales work. Tax breaks too. When the price returns to the already low-low price of $14.99 on Monday, it's not an increase. Yes, the price went down and returned to where it had been but, it didn't increase. An actual increase would be if there had never been a sale and the price increased, as prices do all the time. Like when Ronald Reagan raised taxes six years out of the eight he was in office if you want to get technical about it and confuse raising taxes with tax cuts.  That's Reaganomics though. This is Ferrernomics. When the *sale* is over, prices go back to normal. You can't sell the Heineken FOREVER at $10.99. That would break you what with the costs of it and everything else going up, up up- especially the chips and pretzels!

And really, how much did they drink while the Busch (and Heineken!) were on sale? Are they drunk thinking that ending The Busch Cuts is an "increase"? are they drunk thinking that The Busch Cuts should go on FOREVER?

They must be drunk thinking all that and thinking that all their bullshit cuts are the answer to this whole economic mess. Drunk or stupid.