Voting against your own interests? Nonsense! (part 2)

Yesterday I touched on one reason why the accusation of “voting against your own interests” stands on shaky ground. Namely, that just because a politician says “I want to create more X,” doesn’t necessarily mean there will be more X.

But what about those times when a bill to create more X actually does create more X? That’s the topic for today.

Political polices never truly come a la carte. Want free health care? You’ll have to take a generous helping of higher taxes with it. Oh, and it also comes with a side dish of longer lines at the doctor’s office. And less control over your health care decisions. And a stagnation of technological advances in medicine and… well, you get it.

Food stamps, unemployment benefits, child care assistance, homeland security and other goodies similarly come with a litany of items that weren’t listed on the menu.

Much is said of politicians who are unable or unwilling to keep their word. But the truth is that politicians are often at their most dangerous when they actually deliver what they promised. So the voter is often faced with a dizzying panoply of options:

More cops or higher taxes?

Safer airline travel or more freedom?

Stronger public schools or fewer educational choices?

As the last line indicates, it often comes down to picking your poison. And what happens if you pick the wrong poison? We’ll deal with that tomorrow…