Trickle-down economics, not govt
During the third presidential debate, Gov. Romney made a simple, profound statement.
President Obama said he wanted more federal money to hire more teachers, firemen and policemen. Romney shot back that “trickle-down government doesn't work.” They then proceeded to argue about other points.
I couldn't concentrate on the rest of the debate. In one sentence he illustrated the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.
Conservatives believe that trickle-down economics work. They do. The Reagan years are proof. Liberals believe trickle-down government (handouts, increased regulations and high taxes) is the answer. It doesn't work.
Public-sector jobs include politicians, government officials, teachers, firemen and policemen at all community levels. Their salaries are paid with taxes from the private sector.
Private-sector jobs include factory jobs, small businesses and service industry jobs. Individual businesses and the workers pay the taxes that government spends.
Obama wants to borrow more money to hire more public-sector workers. What happens when the federal aid money runs out? Can the community afford to retain the new workers? Does the community lay them off? Who pays their unemployment benefits? The federal government caused the problem so it, not the states, should pay their benefits.
There is a better way. Cut government regulations and taxes on small, private businesses. This will encourage them to hire more employees in their communities. More employees and more profit means more local tax revenues. More revenue means communities can hire more needed public servants on a steady, permanent basis.
This is how to strengthen and grow our economy. Increase private-sector jobs and decrease public-sector jobs.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.