Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Hawkeye hits it out of the park! What to do about the economy? Marlin Stutzman shows the way.

Hawkeye knows...

June 03, 2011

What To Do About The Economy

On Amy Proctor's blog site, I read the following comment about the current weakness of the U.S. economy...

Can I hear 1 idea from the right winger/conservatives/republicans that would bring an immediate lowering of the unemployment rate (and by immediate i mean like within 6 months to a year). And by lower i mean back down to 4-5%.

I tried to post the following response, but for some reason I was unable to do so (must be Obama's henchmen who "View" my post as a cyber-attack. Anyway, here is my response...

Sure, I'll take up your challenge. Here we go:

First, repeal Obamacare. Since businesses have the weight of those unknown costs and regulations looming over their heads, they are scared to invest and hire because they don't know how much it's going to ultimately cost them. Uncertainty breeds fear. Fear leads investors to stay on the sidelines until they know what's going on.

Second, eliminate the corporate business tax. This is nothing but a double tax...

"There has always been considerable tension between the corporation income tax and the individual income tax, because corporations are owned, directly or indirectly, by individuals who (ultimately) receive a share of the corporations’ incomes. This can result in the same income being taxed twice..."

Stockholders are every day people, and it is they who own corporations, not just those "greedy fat cats" that liberals love to bash. Pension funds are stockholders too. When the government taxes businesses, it reduces the return on investment to the pension fund and ultimately threatens those senior citizens who rely on their pension.

It should be noted that there were no corporate business taxes in the United States until 1894. In fact, that first corporate business tax of 1894 was ruled unconstitutional. Crafty (and no doubt liberal) legislators managed to find a "constitutional" way to tax businesses in 1909. However, the United States arguably enjoyed its greatest period of economic expansion and manufacturing innovation during the period following the Civil War until the beginning of the twentieth century when the so-called "Progressives" began to influence the government (and hence, the economy).

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the "Progressives" (tongue-in-cheek), have done nothing but continually effect measures that have retarded the U.S. economy. [Please note that I am in no way suggesting that liberals are "retards", or attempting to demean people with Downs Syndrome. The word does have another meaning. If you're not familiar with it, look it up.]

Now that was just the start...if you will click here, you can read the whole thing.  Every voter in every part of the country should read this post and think on it!

When unemployment surpasses 9 per cent, when the government is expressly blocking energy resources from our own shores and buying from foreign sources instead, when it seems that this administration is trying to create another Great Depression, we need informed people who understand some of the problems and how to fix them.   Hawkeye knows more about the economy than Barack Obama does.   One thing Barack Obama knows how to do?  Go on vacations and play golf.

My grandsons and Marlin Stutzman's sons watching Marlin speak and making a really fine mess out of lunch!   They ate most of the stuff and built some kind of spaceship with the plates.  I've met Marlin's family and many of his friends and I am thrilled to pieces that he is in Washington representing Indiana.   He also makes sure to come home on a regular basis rather than putting down roots in the Beltway.

Congressman Marlin Stutzman issued a plea today and I want to share that with you as well...

Marlin Stutzman for United States Congress
A Roadmap For America's Future
My Fellow Hoosier,

We are living under the burden of a crushing debt of almost $14 Trillion that threatens the security of our nation and robs future generations of Americans of yet uncreated wealth.
Marlin Stutzman for United States Congress
We must not be content with future solutions to present challenges. While it will take time to build our way out of the fiscal hole we have dug for ourselves, there must come a point in time when we decide to stop digging. The time for choosing the right course of action is now. As a nation, we are faced with two differing philosophies which both claim to hold the answer to our nation's woes.

The philosophy put forth in Rep. Paul Ryan's budget says we ought to cut spending and reform entitlements so we can responsibly reduce and eliminate our debt. The other philosophy, put forth in President Obama's budget, suggests that increased spending on government programs and expanding an already bloated bureaucracy will provide new and needed jobs for Americans. Should we cut our spending to reduce our debt, or should we increase our spending to reduce our debt? This really boils down to an even simpler question: will we start climbing, or will we keep digging? We must decide to start cutting government spending and begin to climb.
Marlin Stutzman for United States Congress
The government does not contribute to our nation's wealth; the government runs on our nation's wealth. Because of this fact, the federal government expands at the expense of the private sector. If we buy into the philosophy that says we need an ever-increasing government, we must eventually address the problem of where the wealth will come from to fund this massive government. Where will the government's revenue come from when the majority of Americans are employed by the United States Government? In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem."

How do we get government out of the way, so that ordinary Americans can once again make America extraordinary? What can be done to stem the tide of government spending that has stifled our economic growth, paralyzed our nation's job creators, and put us on a path to national financial ruin? I believe the first step is following a budget that makes sense and does several things:

  • ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION: Fosters a better environment for private-sector job creation by lifting debt-fueled uncertainty and advancing pro-growth tax reforms.

  • SPENDING CUTS AND CONTROLS: Stops Washington from spending money it does not have on government programs that do not work. Locks in spending cuts with spending controls.

  • REAL SECURITY: Fulfills the mission of health and retirement security for all Americans by making the tough decisions necessary to save critical health and retirement programs.

  • PATIENT-CENTERED HEALTH CARE: Repeals and defunds the President's health care law, advancing instead common-sense solutions focused on lowering costs, expanding access and protecting the doctor-patient relationship.

  • RESTORING AMERICA'S EXCEPTIONAL PROMISE: Tackles the existential threat posed by rapidly growing government and debt, applying the nation's timeless principles to this generation's greatest challenge. Ensures that the next generation inherits a stronger, more prosperous America. (Taken from Paul Ryan's budget proposal.)
We need to get our message out. Liberal spenders in Washington have many platforms from which they can voice their message. Fiscal conservatives need to be creative and fight this advantage. If you'd like to help get this message out, please consider what you may be able to do to help me support Congressman Paul Ryan's budget, by making a contribution today of $25, $50, $100, $250, or more.

Standing For Conservative Values in Washington,

Marlin Stutzman
P.S. Please forward this message to 5 of your friends , thank you for your support! 

Marlin, I can do better than that, I can post it on the internet for all to see!


Hawkeye® said...

Thanks Radar,

I appreciate the kudos.

(:D) Best regards...

Anonymous said...

Hm, I guess it's the old "supply-side economics" issue. I think employers hire people when there is demand for their products and they need the employees to deliver those products. If there is no demand, they're not going to hire people just because they like doing so or because they have excess cash lying around.

Re. tax reductions causing increase in employment, we have a recent example of this, namely the Bush tax cuts. ANd those weren't very effective in that regard. They've been in place since the early 2000s, and the decade that followed had some of the most anemic job growth ever.

"The government does not contribute to our nation's wealth; the government runs on our nation's wealth."

What utter nonsense. Where would the economy be without government spending?

cavalier973 said...

Government spending results in a diversion of resources away from productive uses and toward nonproductive (i.e. political) uses. Therefore, without government spending, the economy would be allocating resources more efficiently.

Chaos Engineer said...

If that were true, then the most prosperous countries would be the ones with the smallest amount of government spending. But in the real world, those countries are nightmarish hell-holes like Afghanistan and Pakistan, where no one would choose to live unless they were a crazy fundamentalist like Paul Ryan.

In fact, government spending is productive when it's used for things that can't be provided by the private sector...either because of "free rider" problems; or because they involve basic human rights that should be granted to everyone and not just auctioned off to the highest bidder.

So examples of things the government needs to spend money on include: Police, criminal and civil courts, food inspection, health care, highways, primary and secondary education, and the military. (Let me know if I need to explain why.)

That's not to say that every dollar the government spends is spent productively, any more than every dollar spent by the private sector is spent productively. But without government spending, we'd descend into anarchy or feudalism.

Here's an article about Pakistan that's been making the rounds.

AmericanVet said...

Health care should not be the business of government, any more than auto repair or plumbing. Doctors are professionals who offer their services and the free market allows the best and the most accessible to have their set of patients. The minute Obamacare was passed, most private practices realized they had to join some kind of cooperative or die. Health care costs then began to skyrocket due to more bureaucracy and red tape. My doctor's fee for a visit has doubled and it wasn't because he changed anything other than joining a cooperative group and having to begin adjusting to Obamacare.

Schools began as local with no government interference. Now with the government in the driver's seat it is often the most costly systems that do the worst job of teaching. Everyone would be better off if local municipalities were given complete control of their own districts but if, at a minimum, voucher systems were created at least the parents would have some choices and the market would begin to reward good schools and eliminate bad ones.

No, the Founding Fathers didn't expect us to take over health care or education. The government is to keep the peace and protect the borders. The "rights" that we are entitled to are spelled out in the Constitution and they do not include the "right" to free health care or the "right" to have to send our kids to the nearest school no matter how bad it is. Fake "rights" grow government and eventually lead to tyranny.

AmericanVet said...

"Where would the economy be without government spending?!"

Wow. Government takes money from people and corporations. It takes large amounts of that money to sustain itself and the larger it gets the more of each dollar it eats up. Then it throws a pittance of what it took back down at us!

If people and corporations keep their money, they invest it and spend it, they build with it and buy with it and save it. Businesses grow, more people get hired in the private sector, so they get paychecks and the economy grows.

Giving government money does the opposite of stimulating the economy, the government is a drag on the economy, especially when they stop drilling and mining operations and ban energy plants that are needed to produce less costly energy so that business can thrive. Duh.

Captain Stubing said...

"Health care should not be the business of government, any more than auto repair or plumbing."

Interesting perspective for a Christian. The health of a human being has no more worth than your care or your plumbing. Nice one, Radar.

Captain Stubing said...

"Wow. Government takes money from people and corporations."

And government doesn't give anything to people and corporation?

Ever heard of military spending?

"It takes large amounts of that money to sustain itself and the larger it gets the more of each dollar it eats up. Then it throws a pittance of what it took back down at us!"

Umm.... all this money that is "wasted", where do you think it goes?

AmericanVet said...

Seriously, the health and welfare of people is not the job of government. We are not supposed to supply food or housing or health care or transportation to everyone. That is communism. Communism always is led by tyranny. So don't moan about health care because that is just not government's job. Don't want to hear your opinion of Christianity, Stubing, as you probably have no idea what Christianity is all about.

But Christians give to help people on their own without government interference. Most of the hospitals and schools built in the first century and a half in this country were led by or entirely funded by churches. There is a big difference between giving voluntarily to help others and the government taking from everyone and then dispersing while keeping a nice chunk of change for themselves.

Government is now about 24% of our GDP!!! No wonder we are spiraling into great debt and the economy is failing. Government has no business in health care any more than it does plumbing or auto repair or dentistry or roofing.

Do some research and see what happens when government takes over health care. The costs go up and those willing to be in the system become less. Many of the best doctors will leave rather than deal with red tape and bureaucracy making medical decisions. Then health care becomes rationed at which point it begins to kill folks off. You can't wait three years for a new kidney? Too bad, wait your turn in line. Canada and Europe have proven this already.

AmericanVet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Captain Stubing said...

... and Radar neatly ducks away from the issue of military spending, hardly an insignificant factor in the US economy, and instead rants about communism.

"Government is now about 24% of our GDP!"

So imagine what would happen to the GDP if you got rid of government spending...

Jon Woolf said...

"So imagine what would happen to the GDP if you got rid of government spending..."

Oh, it would go down. But so what? GDP is one of those things that's important only because pundits say it's important. I've never accepted "Gross Domestic Product" as a useful measure of overall economic productivity, because it includes a lot of "economic activity" that doesn't actually produce much of anything. Manufacturers, builders, carpenters, bankers, computer programmers, truckers, train engineers -- these people produce useful things. Government bureaucrats generally don't.

I suspect that we'd all be a lot better off, better able to analyze and understand economics, if we had three different "domestic product" numbers: one for the private sector, one for the productive aspects of government (of which there are a few), and one for the purely parasitic aspects of government, the ones that use up resources and produce nothing but paperwork. I think we'd all be shocked by how much of government - at all levels - falls into the third category, and how much thereof we could get along without.

Captain Stubing said...

Point taken, Mr. Woolf, but it's easily rephrased. What would happen to employment if we eliminated government spending?

As for parasitic spending (I assume by this you mean money that just disappears into the ether), true, that's always an issue, and should of course be a bipartisan concern.

Jon Woolf said...

Captain, that question isn't answerable, because it posits a situation that will never exist. Without government spending there can't be any government; without a government, human society can't function.

You'd do better to ask "what would happen if the US government was slashed back to the minimum required in the Constitution?" That's a more realistic question.

"As for parasitic spending (I assume by this you mean money that just disappears into the ether),"

No, I mean spending that doesn't produce anything useful. The gallons of ink and thousands of trees used to print those gargantuan budget bills, when an iPad and a PDF would do just as well. The bureaucrat who spends his days writing reports that no one will ever read. The fortunes spent on computer systems that are obsolete before they go on-line,and then are never used because they weren't designed or written right. The millions that go to "education," and get spent on study after study of "how to improve our schools," and when they think they finally have a solution ... there's no money left in the budget to implement it!

AmericanVet said...

Jon said something I agree with! Will sunspots reappear?

Yes, the incredible waste of paper in every legislature in the country and county and cities could all be replaced by digital readers and digital data and digital databases. The faster we get people to wake up to the 21st Century, the more of that particular waste can drop drastically.