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.