Private Sector and Job Creation
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.