Rush Limbaugh on firefighters

[snopes]

Comment: Quote attributed to Rush Limbaugh ....

"Firefighters are nice to have, but they take away from private sector
jobs and contribute nothing to the economy".

This is a quote making its way around Facebook currently.

True or false?

[Weehawk]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...t_walk_it_back

But now we know where Obama gets his economic advice from. Look, as nice as they are to have -- teaching jobs, firemen, policemen -- they are all paid for with money out of the private sector. They are paid for with tax revenue from citizens. They cut into the amount of money left for private sector. They don't grow the number of private sector jobs, they reduce them. Now, I've gotta be very careful here. Because nobody's against teachers or firemen or cops. But those are public sector jobs.

Look at the way these people think.

They're combining two things here: A, the never-ending appeal to tax revenue for firemen, cops, and teachers. That is the education of your kids and the safety of you and your house and your family. And they're trying to say that those jobs are being cut and now we're not safe and your kids aren't being educated. And that's because the private sector's been too selfish and too greedy and so forth. (pause) Look, folks, this is where I have to be very careful. Nobody's opposed to cops or firefighters or teachers.

But they aren't private sector jobs. They do not contribute to economic growth. Their purpose is otherwise. They have an entirely different purpose: Public safety, public education, this kind of thing. But there's no growth in the economy. If you add those jobs -- and if there aren't other types of private sector jobs added while at the same time we're adding to the fire rolls and the cop rolls and teachers -- we are reducing the size of the private sector. This is Marxism 101. It's also Ignorance and Sophistry 101.

[Floater]

Is this man real?

[fitz1980]

They cut into the amount of money left for private sector. They don't grow the number of private sector jobs, they reduce them.

So in Rush's world police, firefighters & teachers aren't also consumers who spend their income on goods and service, which helps grow the economy.

Even better than that disconnect from reality is that apparently Rush now believes that the economy is a zero-sum game. I read one of his books back in the 90s and he argued that the zero-sum game idea of economics was a myth. Of course in that context he was arguing against the idea that if you concentrate the wealth of a nation into too few hands it takes out of what's available for everybody else.

Of course he and his also argue that massive government spending on public works projects during FDR's new deal didn't end the great depression; they actually made it worse and only even more massive government spending on WWII was able to get us out of that hole.

[Sjö]

A good educational system is essential for economic growth. A working legal system (including police) is very important for economic growth. Roads and bridges (which at least around here are mostly paid for by tax revenue and controlled by the public sector) are essential for economic growth. Firefighters, well maybe society can just absorb the losses from fires or start private fire brigades, but is certainly won't help the economy to be without them.

[fitz1980]

Here in the US some rural areas don't have government funded fire protection. When it comes to cities, towns and suburbs even the most anti-government conservative is usually OK with tax payer funded fire departments. A burning house represents a danger not just to the people on the property, but to every other nearby house.

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by Sjö

A good educational system is essential for economic growth. A working legal system (including police) is very important for economic growth. Roads and bridges (which at least around here are mostly paid for by tax revenue and controlled by the public sector) are essential for economic growth. Firefighters, well maybe society can just absorb the losses from fires or start private fire brigades, but is certainly won't help the economy to be without them.

I don't get why many "Conservatives" don't understand this. Isn't conservativism and republicanism supposed to be the people that understand business? Society's "goal" should be to create "value". Business goal is to create "wealth". When "value" and "wealth" get out of sync you have crashes (like the dot.com crash).

Many gov't actions create "value", which is much more important than creating "wealth". Education, defense, fire fighters etc. create "value". Without "value" you can't sustainably create "wealth".

[Floater]

For what it's worth I wouldn't call this conservatism. It's liberalism in absurdum.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Floater

For what it's worth I wouldn't call this conservatism. It's liberalism in absurdum.

Do you mean libertarianism?

[Alarm]

Besides, when you've got Privately funded fire services, what you'd get would be a lot of "Nice place you've got here... Shame if it went up in flames"
instead of real service.

It's like auto insurance and medical insurance. If you're living on the margin, you're not going to spend on it, thinking you can risk it. That means lost revenue to the private company and possible expenses if your house catches fire and sets fire to a neighbouring house which they cover. So they'll try to get you to suscribe to their service...

[Richard W]

"Ignorance and Sophistry 101" indeed...

If you add those jobs -- and if there aren't other types of private sector jobs added while at the same time we're adding to the fire rolls and the cop rolls and teachers -- we are reducing the size of the private sector.

No you're not - how? You might be reducing the proportionate size of the private sector, but not its absolute size. Maths 101?

Unless you think there's no unemployment at all, and private businesses are unable to get the staff they need because they've all rushed off to be firefighters, that is. But presumably the same people would be rushing off to become firefighters even if firefighting was somehow a private business. That's still not increasing any of the rest of the "economy".

Economics 101 has the concept of a "public good", and economics has never said that the "free market" is the right model for every situation. (And the "free market" doesn't mean what many conservative neo-liberals appear to think it means, or pretend to think it means in the hope their audience don't know better, anyway). That's not Marxism 101, it's pretty much Capitalism 101, in that Adam Smith said most of this stuff pretty early on in The Wealth of Nations and his other books.

(eta)

Originally Posted by Ryda Wong, EBfCo.

Do you mean libertarianism?

I think he means neo-liberalism.

[firefighter_raven]

Originally Posted by Alarm

Besides, when you've got Privately funded fire services, what you'd get would be a lot of "Nice place you've got here... Shame if it went up in flames"
instead of real service.

That's pretty close to how things were back in the days of the private fire brigades in the 1700 and 1800's with fees negotiated as the fire burned.

Locally there was a private fire department( IIRC that changed several yrs back and they became a rural fd) that covered a destination resort community here. The big issue was they answered to the homeowner's association and made it nearly impossible to make changes happen that would improve the communities survivability in the event of a major wildfire. One of the changes that the fire service in Central Oregon has been pushing is the phase out of wood shake roofs, in the wildland-urban interface, when it became time to replace the roof.

The homeowner's association required wood shake roofs on any structure within the community and took years to convince them it was safer to allow other types of flame- resistant roofing.

[Brad from Georgia]

I recall a bit in the news within the past year or so to the effect that a private fire department responded to a call, found that the homeowner was not a subscriber, and let the house burn to the ground, standing by only to protect neighboring buildings. I'm sure someone will have a cite.

ETA: Found it.

[Lainie]

Friends of mine, on moving to their neighborhood outside Chattanooga TN, were a bit taken aback when their neighbors urged them to go down to the firehouse, right away, and pay their "membership" fee. Neither of them had ever heard of such a thing.

[DemonWolf]

1) Public sector employees contribute to public sector growth by spending they pay on good and services provided by the private sector.

2) Public sector employees contribute to public sector growth by raising home values and enriching the public though increased home equity. An ineffective police/fire dept or schools will lower property values and decrease from the public wealth. Not to mention that police and fire depts protect the property owned by the private sector and schools teach children to be able to join the workforce and increase the growth of the public sector.

[Sjö]

Not to mention that the legal system levels the playing field for companies so that the most efficient companies can expand, not only the biggest or the most ruthless. Which is good for the economy. Which in turn creates jobs in the private sector.

[luvlyoranges]

So is Limbaugh saying he wants to privatise all fire brigades, schools and law enforcement? One corporation for each or a bunch of competing ones? Or is he just saying stuff without any real beliefs behind it as long as it's controversial and sounds like what his primary demographic wants to hear?

[GenYus234]

That's not an argument that would work on someone like Limbaugh. These types seem to think that anything that limits what a corporation can do to other corporations or the consumer is communism.

[DawnStorm]

The problem as I see it are that a lot of pundits and politicians, and yes talk show hosts, think that 911 services are a federal duty. I look at those services as being a local duty/obligation. Now I'm sure that the 911 services in this county get some federal funding, I would say that they get more state/local funding. Surely some of the 911 services funding comes from property taxes? I will look that up. I don't remember Limbaugh being this, uh, BSI when I listened to him in the 90s. Perhaps he was and I've changed. [personally I think I've become a better person in ways that I don't feel like getting into here]

[ParaDiddle]

Originally Posted by Alarm

Besides, when you've got Privately funded fire services, what you'd get would be a lot of "Nice place you've got here... Shame if it went up in flames"
instead of real service.

I'll say this, every single hair on my neck coils a bit tighter when I hear this. Unfortunately, it's because I'm one of those liber-O-socialist types that has never understood anything other than government-funded social services. I've been that way since preteen years, but it's another story for another time. Since retiring and purchasing a home in a private property neighborhood, I've experienced a but of an awakening on the matter.

I've had several representatives from private alarm/security companies in my home before I selected one to receive my monthly subscription. I kid you not - during each visit - within the first few steps inside the door, I heard at least some version of the "Nice place you've got here. . ." line. I swear, my life is a SNL skit. I wish I could attest that privately contracted fire/EMS would somehow be different, but lately I've come to doubt that.

- P