Saving lives costs too much money
This is ridiculous.
According to the Post and Courier:
Governor Mark Sanford said legislation that offers tax credits for businesses to install sprinkler systems is too expensive and smacks of too much government interference.
What does that even mean? Saving lives isn’t the business of government? That’s about the dumbest argument we’ve ever heard. What next, we shouldn’t use tax dollars to fund fire and police departments?
The Post and Courier also points out:
House Speaker Bobby Harrell, who vows to override any veto of the sprinkler legislation, told the governor in a letter that “you miss the point entirely.”
“This bill is about saving lives,” said Harrell, R-Charleston.
Thank you Mr. Speaker. At least someone is thinking about the safety of our citizens instead of angling themselves for national office.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
[...] Fabregas_the_King wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]
February 14th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
[...] After the Governor’s ridiculous comments against sprinkler legislation, the House today passed the bill “that uses tax incentives and other market forces to encourage businesses and homeowners to install fire sprinklers.” Knowing that the Governor will shoot back some comment about the General Assembly being big tax and spenders, Speaker Harrell’s press release notes: The incentives used in this plan are similar to the incentives championed by Governor Sanford last year in his plan to reform coastal property insurance. [...]
February 14th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
In an attempt to take a potshot at Sanford, you completely ignore his argument.
His point obviously isn’t that we shouldn’t save lives, it’s that this particular measure is too expensive. Do you not understand the difference?
Instead of an 80% tax credit, why don’t we just pay everyone who installs sprinklers $10,000 plus their cost? That would get everyone to install sprinklers, right? It would save even more lives than this, wouldn’t it? Obviously you would agree that giving that much money would be an inefficient use of state money. So you agree that Sanford’s point exists in theory.
But instead of arguing that this particular measure was in fact an efficient use of taxpayer money (and addressing Sanford’s actual argument), you tried to take a cheap shot (pun intended). Ultimately that’s not shocking, as I don’t think it’s within the capacity of this blog to provide much in the way of critical thought.
February 15th, 2008 at 12:27 am
No, I don’t understand. And yes, I am addressing the Governor’s argument. His argument is that its too expensive to save the lives of those fire fighters at the Sofa Super Store or those kids at Ocean Isle.
February 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Ok, so your position is that we should pass any measure that saves lives, no matter how much it costs? I guess you would agree with implementing the plan in my previous post, since it too would save lives?
If this is your position, then I can see why you disagree with the Governor. I disagree - there are plenty of measures that would save lives, but are far too costly to implement. Is this one of them? That’s obviously up for debate, but it’s a more complicated argument than you’re trying to make it.
February 15th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
No, our position is that the government should encourage businesses to place fire sprinklers in their buildings.
February 15th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
“No, our position is that the government should encourage businesses to place fire sprinklers in their buildings.”
Would you agree that there are ways to do that which would be too expensive for the government to undertake? Not that this particular measure is, just that such a thing exists?
February 16th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I think the government should be fair. Instead it’s money money money… how Republicans get more and the people get less.