Tag Archive | "economy"

Tags: , , , , ,

To Sur, With Love

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-07-28 17:17:53. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Rick SincereRickSincere
RickSincereThoughts
July 16, 2009

As part of the gargantuan (1,000-page-plus) health care “reform” package introduced by members of the Democratic majority in Congress, the Obama administration proposes to raise taxes through a “surtax” on Americans who earn the most money.

The Washington Post explained this “soak the rich” policy in a front-page article on July 15:

The surtax would start at 1 percent and rise to 5.4 percent on income exceeding $1 million. Combined with the expiration next year of tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration, the surtax would drive the top federal tax rate to 45 percent, the highest level since lawmakers rewrote the tax code in 1986.

The Washington Times, for its part, points out that this raises U.S. marginal tax rates to their highest levels since the 1980s:

A new surtax of 5.4 percent in the health care bill, which would apply to married couples’ income above $1 million, would bring the top federal income tax rate to 45 percent.

After consideration of state and local income taxes and the Medicare payroll tax, which applies to all wage and salary income, taxpayers in 39 states would face a top marginal income tax rate of more than 50 percent, according to a study by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax research group based in the District.

“That means government would be taking more than half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers,” said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge. “The lowest tax rate would be 47 percent – and that’s in the nine states that don’t tax wages.”

Businesses say the surtax would hurt the economy.

“The intention of this plan is to tax high-income households, but the real victims would be America’s small-business owners,” said Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “Placing a big tax burden on the small-business community would rob them of the resources they need to create the jobs that will lead us out of the recession.”

President Obama would be wise to look to history to see what happened the last time a president made a surtax the centerpiece of his economic program. (Some might object that this is a “health care” program. That’s true, up to a point. The fact that the bill has been referred to the Finance Committee in the House suggests that this is really a revenue bill.)

Advertisement

 

In Yanek Mieczkowski’s 2005 book, Gerald Ford and the Challenges of the 1970s, the Dowling College historian relates what happened when Ford proposed a 5 percent surtax on all incomes above $15,000 (more than it sounds like; remember, these were 1974 dollars) in his first major economic legislative package:

As what he termed “the acid test of our joint determination to whip inflation in America,” Ford pronounced the cornerstone of his new economic program, a one-year, 5 percent surcharge on corporate and personal incomes. The surtax was directed at individuals with yearly earnings of $15,000 or more for married taxpayers and $7,500 for the unmarried. (Taxpayers would have to figure out what they normally owed the government, then add the 5 percent surtax to it.) The advantages of the surtax were that it would be mildly progressive, since the rich would pay more, and temporary, lasting only the calendar year 1975. Nor was it onerous. For example, a single person earning $15,000 would pay a federal income tax of $2,549; the surcharge would add $78. (p. 121)

Despite its modest appearance, Ford’s proposal was met with strong opposition, especially from the Democrats who held a majority in Congress (a majority that would grow substantially after the midterm elections a few weeks after his proposal was announced). Republicans were not too fond of it, either.

Ford took a political risk by proposing a surtax less than a month before congressional elections. Unveiling a tax increase at such a time was like unleashing a skunk at a picnic; representatives and senators ran in the opposite direction, refusing to embrace or even come close to it. Officeholders facing difficult reelection battles, such as GOP senators Bob Dole of Kansas and Marlow Cook of Kentucky, deserted their president rather than support the proposal….

The program itself was a political bomb. The jumble of proposals gave the whole thing an eclectic feel, and the centerpiece — a tax increase — fell flat. One poll showed that Americans opposed the surtax, 58 to 34 percent. Members of Congress resisted it. Just two days after the speech, William Baroody warned Ford that it was “in serious trouble on the Hill and very unpopular politically” and that Congress was in no mood to reduce spending. Two weeks before the election [William] Seidman publicly acknowledged that the surtax faced an uphill struggle on Capitol Hill and called its prospects “uncertain.” The overwhelming Republican repudiation in the ensuing elections turned “uncertain” to “doomed.” Ford’s policy making was off to a rocky start. (p. 124; footnotes omitted)

In one of the more significant parenthetical partial paragraphs of any work of recent history, however, Mieczkowski writes:

(One economist’s skepticism about the surtax generated what later became a mainstay of Ronald Reagan’s “supply-side” economics. Arthur Laffer doubted that the 5 percent surtax would generate much revenue, and while dining at a restaurant with Ford administration members Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, he drew a graph on a napkin to illustrate his belief that tax cuts — rather than increases — would raise more revenue because of increased business activity. His illustration became known as the “Laffer Curve.”) (p. 122)

Apparently other economists caught on, even if they hadn’t seen the napkin. Yanek Mieczkowski writes on page 130:

By November, many economists, realizing that Ford had miscalculated, urged him to drop the surtax proposal and switch his focus to fighting the recession. The president stuck by the surtax and still urged budget cuts.

In the end, the surtax proposal crashed and burned. Mieczkowski notes on page 131:

A political science axiom says that “the president proposes, Congress disposes.” Congress certainly disposed of Ford’s surtax, and quickly. Although he developed a fiscally balanced program incorporating many recommendations from the economic summit conferences, it was also like a multipronged barb that Congress could not swallow. And it soon became incongruous. The deteriorating economy, coupled with the inherent unpopularity of a tax increase, doomed Ford’s first major economic initiative. But that failure was fortunate; as events played out, a surtax would have aggravated the downturn. (emphasis added)

History teaches us, and not just in this example from the mid-1970s, that raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea.

Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have not absorbed this lesson of history and economics. Should they succeed in raising taxes to finance their ambitious program to socialize medicine, they — or, rather, we — will live to regret it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rick Sincere is the editor of RickSincereThoughts

Article has been published with permission

Comments (0)

Tags: , , ,

The Amish: Their Past and Present May Hold Our Future

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2010-01-26 23:16:57. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

American Soldierby Wenchypoo
Wenchwisdom.blogspot.com

If you ever wanted to see where we’re likely headed with the economy, oil use, work life, and self-sustainability, you should look to the Amish and their culture. Their past represents our possible future, and provides some wonderful clues about how to deal with it.

Some surprising and interesting facts about the Amish people:

  • A fine distinction has been made between ownership and use. They can ride in or hire combustion-powered vehicles (with non-Amish drivers) to travel in, as long as they don’t own or operate them without special permission of the church. Certain work crews (construction-related) have special permission to lease work vehicles, operate heavy equipment and electrically powered tools as necessary for their job, as long as they don’t tap into the power lines from outside, or the 110-volt power from outlets.
  • Most families have scaled back or abandoned farming completely, due to skyrocketing prices of land, equipment, and supplies. Population strains within communities have placed a high demand for farmland, right along with developers from the encroaching “outside” world. Being penned-in by land availability and affordability, church, and family constraints, most have turned to business for their livelihood. Amish micro-enterprises abound in large cultural homelands such as Lancaster, PA and others.
  • Education beyond 8th grade home schooling is forbidden. Training for a specific job or job component is allowed, as long as it isn’t formal (for a degree program), and is available by other means (OJT, apprenticeship, workshops/seminars, etc.), because it’s feared that a formal education would encourage leaving the farm and community. Any occupation requiring the use of force (military, police, etc.) is forbidden. Membership in unions and engaging in litigation is also forbidden; it is seen as a horrific waste of money and resources.
  • Amish workers and employers are exempt from Social Security and Medicare tax. Their culture does not allow for paying into or drawing from the system, because extended family and the church serve as their means of social support in times of need or disability/old age. They are also exempt from military service because they believe in non-resistance.
  • Most Amish micro-enterprises are home-based, providing for a family/culture/church woven network in their daily lives. Men and women are encouraged into business equally, but family and church must take priority over economic needs (time off for weddings/funerals/Amish holidays/barn-raisings, etc.). Business is considered a “sideline” to their traditional farming work, despite many families leaving farming as their mainstay.
  • If some component of business requires the use of electronics or combustion, they can contract it out to other firms—even non-Amish ones. They are also allowed to use “non-native” materials (not found on the farm) such as plastics, fiberglass, etc. with church permission. By outsourcing such things, the boss can work right alongside the employees–ensuring immediate access to production, staff, and customers throughout the day. If an electrically-powered item is absolutely essential to their business, an electrical source is created through the in-line use of a diesel engine, hydraulic and air generators, and an inverter—this cumbersome arrangement is called “Amish electricity” because it produces the power they need, albeit inefficiently, without tapping into the forbidden power lines or outlets of the outside world.
  • With the declining availability and outright extinction of some elements of their lives, such as buggy parts, horse plow equipment, etc., these people have made an ingenious bargain with the modern world: they can take modern equipment and “modify” it for their use, with church permission.
  • Since most work takes place during the light hours, industrious use of solar energy abounds in the form of skylights. A few Amish families have been given church permission to explore the modification, refinement, and creation of solar panels to use and sell. For the most part, sweat equity, propane, kerosene, natural gas, and firewood remain their energy sources.
  • Participation in local and regional business associations (Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, etc.) is looked down on, but not forbidden, if used solely as a networking vehicle. Political participation is also looked down on, except when the goal is to become familiar with and voice concerns about regulations and ordinances. Voting at national elections is permitted and voluntary. Lobbying is forbidden. Local craft guilds are the preferred way of communing, networking, and learning.

Clever ingenuity has been the by-product of a population kept small and relatively quiet by church laws and cultural taboos…ingenuity we can all benefit from. Swaying church permissions, meant to keep people and businesses “small”, have helped rather than hindered their usher into the modern world, all in the name of encouraging enterprise.

It would seem to the average reader that the Amish have it together in the modern world, even though their lifestyle harkens back to the Elizabethan Era in Europe (1600’s). We would do a lot for ourselves by taking heed of what these fine people have to offer in the way of possible solutions to our impending problems–if only we’d look back in time for innovation inspiration. What DID people do before the advent of 110-volt power, refined oil, the various social service systems, and disposable “stuff”?

Perhaps the Amish hold many answers to some of our future pressing problems, like questionable oil supplies, environmental poisoning, Social Security and Medicare deficits, skyrocketing education costs, corporate greed, and self-sufficiency in general. Perhaps we outsiders need to look to the past for our future needs…or maybe the past is slowly, cleverly building itself to accommodate bits of the future on limited terms. So much of their “restrictions” make a lot of sense, and for logical reasons (church aside).

It’s interesting how some things in their world mesh with things in our world. Problems that we have incurred in the outside world have also been incurred and “cured” inside, such as:

  • Corporate greed—when the Amish sense that they have too much (money, work, overhead), they either divide the business and sell divisions, turn divisions over to relatives, or sell off the entire business. The church lets them know when they’ve grown too big for their britches, but the church smiles upon success with humility. Unbridled growth is unsustainable, and only leads to waning demand and “Been-There-Done-That” Syndrome.
  • Clutter and excess—drawing a fine line between ownership and use, they tend to keep down the number of things they own and may not use every day, keeping farm clutter to a minimum (as well as liability). Merely getting to use something to get a job done, rather than keeping around “just in case they need it again” saves space, money, and headaches.
  • Over-education—in today’s world, more and more people spend more and more money to garner degrees for jobs that can be performed well without those pieces of paper…and then those jobs disappear, leading to yet more and different degrees. A basic education and hands-on training are sufficient for most jobs in this country, but it won’t make the kind of money we demand from the start for those jobs. A particular thorn in this area is the advent of women returning to the workplace…many women pursue expensive degrees, only to leave the workforce a few years later to raise children. At some point, we have to ask ourselves: is the return on education investment worth it in the end, or are we spending more for that degree than we wind up making in the workforce?
  • Over-work—the Amish have made this part of their lives, yet we haven’t really begun to benefit in large numbers from the flexible hours and access to family that a home-based business brings. We prefer to indenture ourselves to corporations on their terms, and merely hope for the best when it comes to leaving our kids in the daycare and public school systems. Work has become the center of our lives, rather than the home and family.
  • Insufficient government funds—we are currently facing a crisis of monumental proportion when it comes to the Boomer generation, retirement, and health care in regard to unfunded retirement and Medicare needs. Our current system is a pay-as-you-go one, meaning current workers pay taxes for current retirees and Medicare recipients to collect checks and benefits from. When the number of workers dwindles and the numbers of retirees and medically needy balloons, the payroll taxes will increase to accommodate their social service needs…and your paycheck decreases as a result. By relying less on others and more on our own resources, we can ease this burden somewhat, even though the money paid into the system already will be lost forever.
  • Declining natural resources—there is talk that the current global oil supply will last for another 30 years or so, that oil drillers are already having a hard time finding and getting oil out of the ground, and OPEC certainly cannot keep up with current and future demands. If this is the case, we need to find large-scale inexpensive viable alternatives now, and something other than the expensive substitutes we currently have available as options.

By modifying existing equipment, the Amish have made clever use of hydraulics and pneumatics to avoid using the one power source forbidden by the church. By employing the use of modified equipment, and working with the sun, we would save tons of generated energy from outside and personal energy from within.

  • Over-globalization–Rather than making contentious trade deals and questionable ad campaigns in pursuit of the almighty dollar, and succumbing to a 24-7 world in all its different time zones, perhaps we should be thinking about going back to work with nature and providing for ourselves what we really need right here at home. Over-technology, over-ownership, and unsustainability contribute to this need for global profit reach, and we need to ask ourselves what we’ll do with it all when the power goes out.

We need to get creative again, make ample use of what we already have, and satisfy demand here at home, rather than covering the globe with things nobody wants or needs (complete with culture-targeted slick marketing). Working efficiently within daylight hours and personal constraints leaves plenty of time to attend to other priorities, like family, home, and church, and working close to home insures easy access to family—the top priority.

  • Over-regulation—by recognizing that government only serves as an interfering body when it comes to daily work, spiritual and home life, the Amish seceded from the outside world into one where their church and service to God is the regulator…no vote, no committee. Since coming to America to escape religious persecution by both Catholics and Protestants, a compact has been struck with Uncle Sam: no interference, except where elements of the outside world come onto the farm or into the business (zoning, health inspections for food-related businesses, sales taxes, business sign sizing, and payroll taxes for non-Amish employees). The church takes care of the rest.

Persecuted in Europe…settled and thriving in America…the Amish have been with us since before the Declaration of Independence was signed. They will likely still be here when the rest of us burn out and move on. Who knows? They may be our only guiding force in the end for flipping the dependency switch on technology once and for all.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Wenchypoo writes for the Wenchwisdom blog

Article has been published with permission

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments (2)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Under The Radar: 10th Amendment Movement Picks Up Steam

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-07-20 21:25:08. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
July 19, 2009

Millions of Americans watch with horror as the Obama administration continues to implement its own version of ‘change.’ Change that involves an unprecedented and systematic devolution of power to the federal government, in direct contravention of the Constitution.

From the pending takeover of 17% of economy under the auspices of health care reform, to the government takeover and subsequent ownership of automobile companies, to the unconstitutional interference in the formerly private market under the rubric of stimulating the economy. Not to mention the proposed cap and trade legislation which would give the federal government unlimited powers of taxation and regulation under the guise of saving the planet.

Totally ignored by elected officials of both parties is the tenth amendment of the Constitution, which states very clearly, “The power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Many Americans don’t agree with the left’s idea of a ‘living constitution’, arguing that the intent of the founders should govern the interpretation and application of the Constitution, not the whimsical and politically motivated present day politicians. And, largely unreported by the media, they are starting to stand up to the federal government.

To date, 37 states have introduced sovereignty resolutions, asserting their state’s sovereign rights under the tenth amendment.

Earlier this month, Louisiana became the seventh state, joining Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Idaho and Tennessee to officially adopt a resolution affirming their sovereignty. These states are putting the federal government on notice that politicians in Washington do not have the right, under the Constitution, to continue to impose their increasingly onerous federal mandates on sovereign states.

Some states, with Arizona leading the way, are going a step further.

Under Arizona’s Health Care Freedom Act, which was passed by the Arizona state legislature this month, a voting initiative will be placed on the 2010 ballot that, if passed, will allow Arizona to opt out of any federal health care plan.

Following Arizona’s lead, five other states — Indiana, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming — are considering similar initiatives to opt out of federal health care for their 2010 ballots This, even before Congress has created the program.

Arizona is also preparing for the misnamed ‘climate’ bill, that passed the House this month. (With eight Republican votes.) The Arizona state Senate voted 19-10 to approve a bill banning the Department of Environmental Quality from enacting or enforcing measures with language pertaining to climate change.

Other states are stepping up to the plate and asserting their state’s sovereign right under the second amendment – a right that guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

On July 6, Florida introduced the Firearms Freedom Act which seeks to provide “that specified firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition for personal use manufactured in state are not subject to federal law or regulation” in the State of Florida.

Increasingly, the representatives ‘we the people’ have elected to preserve and protect our rights, are ignoring the clear, unequivocal language of the Constitution. Our politicians seem unaware of the fact that the Constitution does not include congressional power to override state laws.

In fact, the power our representatives are now accruing to the federal government was expressly voted down, not once, but several times.

During the Constitutional ratification process, James Madison drafted the ‘Virginia Plan’ which advocated a strong federal government. It proposed, among other things, giving Congress legislative authority, and a veto over state laws. Each of Madison’s proposals was soundly defeated. Our founders clear intent was vesting all powers in the states, with but a few, listed exceptions.

Ever since 1938, when FDR used the occasion of the great depression to drastically expand the scope of federal government (Wickard vs Filburn) using an absurd reading of the Commerce Clause, this unconstitutional taking of power by the central government has gone virtually unchallenged. Until now.

Though the media has ignored these efforts, ‘we the people’ are starting to fight back, via our state and local representatives.

Politicians need to be reminded that our Constitution is still in effect. And Americans need to be reminded that just because some believe the trendy notion that our Constitution is a ‘living, breathing’ document, doesn’t make it so.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Article has been published with permission


Comments (2)

Tags: ,

How To Undermine the Economy

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-08-07 15:37:30. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

by NotYourDaddyno_trespassing
GovernmentIsNotYourDaddy

August 1, 2009

If you wanted to come up with a plan to undermine the economy of the most prosperous and successful nation on earth, how would you go about it?

The first thing you’d have to do would be to debase the underlying value system that provides the foundation for prosperity. That is, the value system to which the founders of this nation, and many generations of immigrants who came here seeking opportunity, subscribed. The core of that value system is the belief that you do not deserve anything you have not earned.

The first step would be to condition the populace to believe that prosperity is bad, that anybody who makes more than a modest income must be evil (or at least dishonest), and that nobody really deserves to be rich, no matter how much they contribute to the economy or how many opportunities they create for others. The rich, by definition, are always a minority, since the term itself implies someone who has substantially greater wealth than the average person. All that’s usually needed to turn the many against the few is a sense of grievance.

Fostering a sense of grievance can be accomplished by promoting the notion that everybody, by virtue of their very existence, is entitled to basic sustenance, such as health care, food, shelter, etc. This attitude can be cultivated by establishing a system of bureaucracies (paid for almost entirely by the rich) that provide free handouts to everybody else, while nurturing a sense of perpetual resentment among the people receiving the handouts toward those who provide the wherewithal to satisfy their ever-increasing expectations.

The many are not generally aware that nearly 90% of the income taxes that sustain our government, and all the services “it” provides, are collected from the top 20% of income earners. And, if the many were aware of that, do you think they’d feel like saying “Thank you”? Not likely. Because they’ve been conditioned to believe that the rich don’t deserve their wealth, and that they, the beneficiaries of all those taxes paid by the rich, deserve that money more than the people who earned it. What did the beneficiaries do to deserve it? Nothing. But they exist, and therefore they’re entitled to things they cannot afford, so the money should be taken from those who can afford it and redistributed to them.


Having undermined the cultural values that provide the basis for a prosperous economy, by fostering a culture of dependency on ever-expanding government services, you now have popular support for the next step, which is to penalize production. You do that by regulating industries to the point where the cost of doing business is too great to justify the returns, forcing businesses to either downsize, go bankrupt, or relocate offshore. That increases unemployment, creating an even greater dependency on government services. At the same time, it reduces production so there’s less wealth to tax, and less money coming into the system to support the ever-increasing demands.

At that point, you’ve got a self-perpetuating cycle, with ever-increasing demands on the system and ever-diminishing resources from which to draw to provide for them. To add fuel to the firestorm, you can use the increasing demands as an excuse to raise taxes on the remaining top producers even more, driving more employers out of business or offshore, creating an even larger non-productive class, and further accelerating the drain on the system…

But why stop there? At this point, the economy is so unstable, it can be toppled with ease. To finish it off in style, all that’s required is to spend like a drunken sailor. Get the nation so far in debt to hostile foreign powers that they won’t accept our IOUs any more. Print up fiat money and dilute our currency to the point that the whole world loses confidence in it and the G20 proposes a new international monetary standard. Then distract the citizens by holding contests in Congress to see who can spend money the fastest, and call it a “stimulus plan.”

At that point, the death spiral reaches critical mass. That’s where we are today. How did we get to this point? Well, it could just be a combination of entropy, ignorance, and well-intentioned idiots. Or it could be that there are those who actively seek to undermine our economy to bring our nation to its knees. For what purpose? That depends on who’s pulling the strings. I concede that this begins to sound a little paranoid from someone who usually dismisses conspiracy theories. On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine that anyone, especially the leaders of our nation, are stupid enough not to realize they’re doing the exact things required to accelerate the collapse of our already destabilized economy. And, if they’re not stupid, then they must have a reason for what they’re doing.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NotYourDaddy is a conservative libertarian who believes in free will and the free market. NYD thinks the role of the government is to protect the rights and liberties of its citizens. Stop there.

NYD’s attitude toward ever-expanding government can best be summed up by snarling “Get your hand out of my pocket and leave me alone!” Visit NotYourDaddy’s blog at Government is Not Your Daddy.


Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Delivering the Goods

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-09-15 21:12:40. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building
Image by cliff1066 via Flickr

by Margaret Goodwin
Government is Not Your Daddy
September 14, 2009

The United States rose up from a handful of rebellious colonies to become the richest and most powerful nation in the world. Why? Because we led the world in production. For 200 years, America delivered the goods.

But, in the 1970’s, all that suddenly changed. For the first time in history, the U.S. started having trade deficits. That means our net consumption exceeded our net production. And, every single year since 1975, our nation has consistently consumed more than it produced. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that’s not sustainable.

The depressing truth is America is no longer a world leader in production. We are trailing the pack. We are now a debtor nation, and our biggest creditor is China. — What the hell happened? And how will we ever recover? And, the more disturbing question is, what will happen to America if we don’t?

If we ever want to restore America to its proper place in the world, the first thing we need to understand is why we no longer have a productive economy. It’s pretty simple, really. — Because we no longer produce. Why not? – If we take a good hard look at the nature of production, maybe we can figure that out. The three key elements of production are capital, labor, and raw materials.

First, you need capital for research and development. To develop a new product that meets a real need in the marketplace takes a lot of research. It may take many years to develop. Research and development is extremely expensive, and there’s no guarantee of success. There has to be an enormous potential return on investment to justify that kind of risk.

That kind of return on investment is what our current administration refers to as “excessive profits.” And they have this notion that “excessive profits” should be punitively taxed. When government puts a lid on the potential for return on investment, what happens? The investors take their capital and invest it someplace else, — someplace that welcomes production, and wants to build up their economy and provide employment for their population. (Unlike the United States, it would seem.)

The second thing you need for production is raw materials. No matter what you want to produce, you need some combination of raw materials to produce it, whether wood, paper, metal, glass, fiber, or petroleum products. All raw materials come from the earth; they don’t come out of the air, or some genius’ imagination, or the printing presses at the Federal Reserve. They all come out of the ground, either through timber, mining, or agriculture.

Here, in Southern Oregon, we live in one of the richest areas in the country, in terms of natural resources. We’re rich in timber. We’re rich in minerals. But, if this part of the country is so rich, why is it so poor? Why is unemployment so high? Because we’re not allowed to use the natural resources with which we’re abundantly blessed. Overregulation, and the endless environmental litigation it has spawned, has all but curtailed the timber and mining industries, — the very industries that provide raw materials for every sort of production on which our economy relies. And the overregulation doesn’t stop there. It’s hobbling the manufacturing industries, too.

The third thing required for production is labor. We’ve actually got a surplus of that. Look at our unemployment numbers, nationwide. Private sector jobs are steadily declining because our industries are stymied by excessive regulation and punitive taxation. So how does our government address that issue? It tries to replace the jobs lost due to declining production by creating new jobs in the public sector.

The trouble is those jobs do nothing to restore our national productivity. Public sector jobs and service jobs don’t create any new wealth. They just swirl money around in the economy. And, as that money swirls around, more and more of it leaks out to other countries, as we buy foreign-made products because we can’t or don’t produce enough at home.

As the real wealth leaks out of our economy, the Fed prints up more and more new money, which only dilutes the value of the money we already have in circulation, leading to higher and higher inflation. As long as we consume more than we produce, there is no way to add real value back into our economy, and our currency will continue to lose whatever value it has. We must restore production to have a sustainable economy.

This country was founded on the sacred principles of liberty and freedom. Not just individual freedom, but economic freedom. America became a world leader because America delivered the goods. That’s what it’s all about. That’s what it’s always been about. We have to stay solvent to preserve our liberty. If our economy fails, we’ll lose our freedom. Stifling production smothers the economy. And that’s what our government is doing.

Contact your Congressmen and Senators and tell them we want our economy back. Government can’t solve the problem. Government is the problem. Give us back our economy, and get government out of the way!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Margaret Goodwin writes for the Government is Not Your Daddy blog.

Article published with the author’s permission.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments (0)

Free Subscription to Naked Liberty Articles
* indicates required
Advertise Here
Advertise Here

TradeTrakker


Our Twitter Followers

Friends: Followers:

Recommended









free counters

Contribute

Other Links

EasyHits4U.com - Your Free Traffic Exchange - 1:1 Exchange Ratio, 5-Tier Referral Program. FREE Advertising!

Yavrim.com - Link to a Random Site. Help Promote Free Traffic Exchange
Subscribe to updates

Get Adobe Flash player