Private Sector and Job Creation
Deborah Venable
09/10/08
Politicians
love to sprinkle their speeches with so-called “buzz words” that supposedly
link them to the “average” person.
These terms “prove” that they are “in touch” and that they “care” about
all those from whom they are seeking votes.
Unfortunately, when they turn to talking about the private sector job
creation statistics, the magic words that pop out of their mouths tend to weave
a spell of misunderstanding that is remarkable.
Number
one: Politicians of all stripes are not
dependent on the private sector or its ability to “create” jobs. If that were the case, there would be only
one political party and no “private sector” at all. Even though that is where many of them would wish to lead us,
this is still America and too many of us have tasted the sweet nectar of
liberty.
Let’s
turn to the present statistics available on private sector job creation, shall
we? It has always been true that the
party in power will have bathed itself in the statistics that support its
members’ policies and actions while they are in power, and they will refer to
“the present” in glowing terms while the opposition party will try to convince
the voters that the “same reign of power” achieved disastrous results where
private sector job creation is concerned.
On the surface, the available statistics seem to support everything the
Democrats are saying – from “the tax breaks didn’t help” to the only jobs that
were created were a result of “government spending” – specifically defense
contracts.
So,
the tax cuts didn’t help, huh? When are
people going to begin to think for themselves on this one? As any of my regular readers probably know,
I hate tax cuts. *(See
footnote at end of this article for elaboration.) The term merely represents a political ploy that is disingenuous
at best and an outright lie at worst.
But it only stands to reason that if people have less of their earning
power confiscated from them, they will be able to use it however they see
fit. Anyone who wishes to start up or
invest in a business, therefore, would be able to do it more effectively with
more money. There is no arguing with
that.
“Tax
cuts for the rich don’t help the “average guy.” You’ll hear Democrats dutifully
trot out that line every chance they get.
Problem is, the “average guy” is employed by or dependent on “the rich”,
(unless he is employed by or dependent on the government), or trying for
everything he is worth to join the ranks of the rich via his own efforts in
private sector business. Let’s not
forget that politicians who use that particular talking point do not fall into
the category of the average guy, but most are certainly among the ranks of the
rich. That wealth is subsidized by the
private sector rich and average alike, which all too often seems to escape
question of their logic on this point.
Hey,
I’ve got a great idea. Let’s take these
government employees, (politicians) and base their salaries only on their
needs. If they are already rich, they
don’t need salaries at all. No
subsidies for politicians. They
certainly don’t need salaries that place them in the ranks of the rich. That ought to put a little money back in the
coffers and perhaps negate the need for a tax increase on the private
sector. Oh, and they certainly don’t
need those huge staffs of folks working for them either. After all, that is NOT private sector job
creation – just more government spending.
It
is truly amazing to me how politicians can bemoan rising unemployment figures
after pushing through the minimum wage increases and ever more regulation on
private industry. How do they think
these things get paid?
Here
is the bottom line. If you believe that
“huge” profits are fair game for increased government taxation, then the
figures on private sector job creation should not be important to you at
all. Eventually that mindset will end
up nationalizing every major industry in this country, and we will truly cease
to be that “beacon of hope and shining city on the hill” that has championed
human freedom all over the world.
I
have a question. Did any of those
actually touting the socialist/communist ideals of nationalizing everything,
(including the financial sector via a never ending list of bailouts), actually
pass Economics 101 in college? I know
it was one of my least favorite subjects, but at least I did pass it!
To
sum all of this up: The private sector
creates jobs when it has a reasonable incentive to do so via a potential for
increased profits. Take away that
incentive or those profits through increased regulation and taxation, and the
private sector will cutback, lay off, and downsize in self-defense. The very first to be hurt by this is the
“average” guy.
* Happy Tax Day and Tax Me More Or Tax Me Not