Growing Government Spending - Bad For The Economy

As we have seen in the past year the federal government has grown at an alarming rate. If it continues we are headed down a perilous road.

I would like to put aside politics and look at what the current administration is doing, which is a continuation of what the previous administration was doing but on steroids. Since both parties are to blame we need to look at why what is happening is bad for this country's economy.

I think most Americans can see that the spending that is going on in Washington cannot continue. You can't spend like that in your budget, you would go bankrupt. Most people understand economics from a simple supply and demand standpoint, low supply and high demand means prices will rise, low demand and high supply means prices will fall. The 'market' is always trying to find that price point where supply equals demand and everyone is happy.

What the Federal government is doing right now is spending money it doesn't have. In order to do that it is selling US Treasury bonds to foreign governments, mainly China. We will need to service that debt, pay the interest and the principle. But what they are spending this created money on is not going to produce anything to do that. It is going towards government programs that don't produce anything.

How do I know this? Because government programs, by definition, don't produce anything. They take tax dollars, something you earned producing something (unless you work for the government) and spend them on things that don't contribute to increasing productivity. That isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are legitimate jobs that government provides such as police, fire, roads, infrastructure and defense. All good things, but they don't increase productivity, in other words they don't add to the bottom line, they are liabilities. Necessary, but liabilities, they don't pay for themselves. Government only spends, it does not produce.

I think most Americans would agree that the deficits that this administration is creating cannot be sustained. The numbers are mindboggling. The deficits that are being created along with the liabilities that we have for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are at such numbers that most people's eyes just glaze over. What happens when those liabilities go beyond the ability of the government to tax? You can't tax 100% of people's earnings.

The Federal government needs to cut spending drastically. It will be painful to many and the decisions will not be popular because government programs have become so far reaching. It is the hardest thing for a politician to do. Nobody wants their subsidy cut or their favorite program cut and the politicians are all looking at the next election and getting re-elected. In an era of close to ten percent unemployment it is government jobs that is the fastest growing segment of the job market. It should be the exact opposite. But like I said previously, government doesn't produce anything, it only spends. Who is paying for the salaries of these new government workers? If you have followed me at all so far, you already know the answer. If you don't get it yet, the answer is...You and I in the form of higher taxes. There is no way around it. This is how the government says it creates jobs. But these non-legitimate government jobs are paid for using tax money from people that don't work for the government. I hope you can see why this is not a good thing. Jobs need to be created in the private sector, not in government.

Right now the administration says that only those people who make above a certain amount will see their taxes increase. Unfortunately, there aren't enough 'rich' people to pay for all of this spending. It will come down to pretty much everyone. The problem with that is now you won't be able to spend that money or save it which allows the bank to lend it to some person or a business to purchase something that will increase productivity.

Productivity is what creates a growing economy. Government spending takes money from you and businesses and puts it to non-productive uses. That money would have been spent in the private sector and would have been used to increase productivity. And increased productivity, overall, means creation of new jobs and increased wages. What taxes and government spending does is removes all of the things that might have been done with that money to increase productivity and applies it towards things that don't produce anything, thereby not contributing to expanding the economy.
There is a book written after World War II by economist Henry Hazlitt called 'Economics in One Lesson'. It is available anywhere and does a very good job of explaining complex economic concepts in everyday language and situations. It is not long and only gets a little boring at times, but if you force yourself to read it you will learn and know more about classic economics than ninety percent of people in this country. Certainly more than ninety percent of those elected people in Washington. I dare you to read it.

By: Doug Cassada

Everybody from representatives from the Kansas legislature to the Mayor of New York City to university researchers certainly want to make it more difficult and expensive for you and I to enjoy such pleasures in life like pizza and soda.

In Kansas, the legislature wants to tax the citizens of that state one penny per tablespoon of sugar in sodas and sports drinks.

The justifications are the super-duper combo "we need to raise more money" to the ever present "war on obesity".

Michael Bloomberg, mayor of the bastion of freedom, New York City, also agrees with with the Kansas legislature and wants his legislature to pass a penny-per-ounce tax on soda. He wants to prevent making cuts in education and health care.

Mr. Bloomberg also said:

"In these tough economic times, easy fixes to our problems are hard to come by," he said. "But the soda tax is a fix that just makes sense. It would save lives. It would cut rising health care costs. And it would keep thousands of teachers and nurses where they belong: in the classrooms and clinics."

And then there are the eggheads. Researchers from the University of North Carolina published a study in the Annals of Internal Medicine which came to the conclusion that an 18 percent tax on pizza and soda would cause American adults to lose 5 lbs. per year. Wow. How many politicians are going to sink their teeth into this study to advance their agenda of advancing the fat police?

I didn't even have the heart to talk about all the new cigarette tax increases being proposed nationwide.

Of course I have a couple of questions for the above people.

1. Instead of taxing more, have any of the above governmental entities think about eliminating wasteful positions, programs and positions. Its the government, I'm sure there is a plethora of things that fit the category of "wasteful".

2. When is it a good thing to raise taxes in good or bad times, but especially bad times. Will desperately needed jobs not exist as a result of these proposed taxes? Yea probably.

And lastly, just a comment. If the government wasn't so heavily involved in every aspect of our lives, they would never require so much money to operate, and believe me efficiency is not a priority for any government program or agency that sucks off the teet of the taxpayer.

This kind of stuff can not go on forever. At some point the people will eventually (I hope and pray) not put up with so much bloated government and interference into everything we do.

By: Robert Herriman
I have over 20 years experience in clinical and public health microbiology and infectious diseases. I want to enlighten and inform about infectious diseases that could affect you, rare and common, and what you can do to protect you and your family from these dreaded afflictions. See more of my work at http://www.examiner.com/x-7707-Infectio ... e-examiner

What ever happened to strong leaders? The kind that fought for, and built the greatest nation ever known. What ever happened to the kind of leaders, that made the right decisions; Even when they weren't the easy or popular ones? The kind of leader that understood the stakes, and made decisive moves in spite of them. The kind of leader, that didn't base his decisions on opinion polls, or popularity ratings.

It seems that today's leaders are more concerned with re-election than standing on the fundamental and sound judgment of those that built this great nation. From the oval office to the local school board; it seems today's politicians are more interested in buying a vote than earning the trust and respect of those, who elected them. We as a society should put more emphasis on the unwavering principles, of our elected officials. Focus less on what they can do for us, and concern ourselves with the content of their character, and what they as our elected leaders can do for this great nation.

I'm tired of watching snake oil salesmen, elected to office based on bumper stickers, and slick slogans. Each man has a moral code, they live by. If it doesn't include, a strong belief in freedom, liberty, independence, and individuality; then he has no place in office. An elected official should concern himself with the prosperity of his respective jurisdiction. It's not his place to make promises, that will be payed for, by the sweat of others.

Honesty, and common sense is what's lacking most, in American leaders.The American people, don't need empty promises, mixed with a little mindless rhetoric. What we need are results. What we need is for someone to make the hard decisions. Our country is going to hell in a hand basket, and our elected officials are still making promises that, we just can't keep.

Thank God somebody gets it. Thank God somebody understands, we can't just continue with this tax and spend mentality. Recently a man, by the name of Chris Christie was elected, by the people of New Jersey, to serve as governor. Governor Christie, appears to have the wherewithal to repair a broken state. A state, that per capita has the highest deficit in all of the United States.

Already, the governor has froze spending, as well as made many hard decisions on cutting programs, and program assistance. What amazes me is, if Mr. Christie, gets his way he will fix New Jersey, and he'll do it with a common sense approach. Where have people like this been hiding? While everyone else is out there spending, as if they've won the lottery.

Let's get back to the basics, in this country. Back to the fundamental principles that made our country, the greatest ever known. It is the strength, and ingenuity of the American people, that made us the economic leaders of the world. When you place the burden of over taxation on the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people; you stifle progress. Therefore slowing Economic growth.

By: Lannis Mock
http://www.wellroundedpeople.com

The old saying asks "If you don't have time to do it right the first time, when will you ever have time to do it right?" Politicians keep saying that it is crucial that we get some kind of healthcare reform passed this year. After all we'll be able to fix it later.

That approach has led to most of the current problems in many areas. By not developing a comprehensive and complete bailout plan before implementing it, banks have been able to thwart many of the original intentions of the bill. Once the money was delivered, we have found it hard to correct the problems that resulted.

Medicare was passed with the assumption that we'd be able to fine tune it as needed. It is in desperate need of repair. Social Security has had problems since 1960, and has required repeated adjustments, but no major reforms have ever been accomplished.

Based on past performance, it is doubtful that major changes will be made to any healthcare bill that gets passed. I believe that it is crucial that it be done properly to avoid being stuck with another program that doesn't work properly. The present healthcare system is a result of that approach.

Hardly anyone will dispute the need for healthcare reform. That healthcare providers have gotten excessive in their charges is unquestioned. Pharmaceutical companies are able to manipulate the FDA to block some effective treatments or approve dangerous ones is apparent. Insurance companies such as AIG are noted for the frequency with which they refuse to pay claims for pre-existing conditions, even though the patient was unaware of them. People also abuse the system, demanding un warranted or unnecessary procedures, and doctors prescribe them because they pay better. Medicare and Medicaid fraud is rampant. Reform is vital.

Unfortunately, a bill which does not address all the problems will serve to perpetuate those which it doesn't address. The present bills only deal with a few of the issues, leaving greater opportunity for abuse in some of the others. If The doctors are to be paid regardless of the patient's ability to pay, there is no incentive for either the patient or the doctor to consider other alternatives. If everyone is required to have insurance, there is no deterrent to excessive pricing. People just have to pay it.

If the proposed healthcare passes, I fear that Congress will dust their hands and say "well, we took care of that," and many of the unattended problems will become systemic. My children and grandchildren will suffer the consequences. Is that what we want?

Wouldn't it be better to take the necessary time to find out all the issues, from everyone affected, then develop a bill that addresses as many as possible? I Realize that it will not be possible to satisfy everyone, but let's try for something that will at least meet a majority of the needs. After all, we'll be stuck with it for a very long time. Let's do it right the first time so we don't have to do it again.

By: Donald Fishgrab
Donald Fishgrab writes the blog BeingChristianToday to help others in understanding the Bible. Each post is in the form of a study connecting to the passages before and after.

The future of healthcare in America now depends on parliamentary procedure. This is the problem with government controlled anything. The word of the day is no longer surgery, healing, or medicine. Healthcare now depends on "reconciliation". Isn't it ironic that reconciliation in congress means that democrats must divorce themselves from the republicans on this issue? This stuff makes me sick!

I am grateful for the healthcare I have received throughout my life. In 1957 I was born in a small rural hospital in East Tennessee with a club foot. At 10 years old, doctors performed surgery to straighten my legs. I would later become an athlete and routinely outperform others in physical activities. I want to start a boxing league for guys over 50 right now.

My kids experienced numerous health problems landing them in hospitals. We had multiple knee surgeries and one burst appendix. Even with insurance, my family has qualified for the medical deduction on income taxes multiple times. I have no complaints about the nurses, doctors, or hospitals. I have never appreciated the complicated billing process or the mounds of paperwork required. Like everyone, I hate how much medical care costs.

My greatest fear is that this healthcare plan will limit services, increase costs, and overall reduce the quality of care. Obama promises just the opposite. I hope he is right. My problem is that once the government is in charge there is no accountability. The progressives say that over 40,000 people die each year because they do not have access to healthcare. Once this bill is passed, that stat will be hidden. If the bill passes, will anyone question 10 years from now how many died due to lack of care? Even if 80,000 were to die the government would claim success. They would say that 160,000 would have died without the bill.

Ditto on the costs. I believe each of us will pay more for healthcare regardless of this bill. The government again will boast of their genius for reducing costs. They will say that costs would have skyrocketed without their intervention.

The big number is the uninsured. Obama says this bill will insure 30 million people who do not currently have insurance. Does the government have the names of those people and will they follow up in 10 years to see how many are in the program? That would be no, but they will proclaim loudly about the millions who received it. When you get government control, you get political spin and no real accountability.

I listened to two doctors, on both sides of the issue, debate about the bill's effect on various medical procedures until my head was about to explode. Each procedure carries it's own unique requirements, complications, and risks. Is Nancy Pelosi really the best person in the country to provide a solution to this mess?

I am getting sicker by the minute.

By: William H Watson
Check out Bill's blog at http://www.questionsbybill.com

Joe Biden said that success in Iraq may be one of the great achievements of the Obama administration. Most of our soldiers will be home by summer and the Iraq government is doing well. What would the situation be today if we had not invaded Iraq?

If the US had not invaded Iraq Saddam Hussein and his sons would still been in power. Throughout the 90's Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. He targeted the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ite Muslims in the south. As his sons gained more power they became ruthless with their own personal terror machines. The only debate would be concerning the number of victims. Would it have been thousands or hundreds of thousands during this past decade? It is terrible that over 4000 of our soldiers died in the war with Iraq. But every American death may have saved a thousand lives or more.

Saddam had a thing going on with the United Nations. On the one hand the UN had placed sanctions against Iraq, while on the other hand, Saddam made millions off the "Oil for Food" program. The scandal allegedly involved financing for Al Qaeda. The program was suggested by the US in 1995 to allow Iraq to trade oil for food and other humanitarian supplies. These provisions were then supposed to go to the poor Iraqi citizens hurt by the sanctions. Very little happened to the culprits of this scandal. I'm sure Saddam would have generated many more sweet deals to fund his operations through the UN.

UN Resolution after resolution had been given against Saddam through the 90's. Everyone believed he had weapons of mass destruction and was looking for ways to deliver them. Do you remember how he kept all the weapons inspectors confused? I'm sure there would have been more powerless resolutions and Saddam would have only grown more embolden to deceive the world. He attacked Iran in the 80's and Kuwait in the 90's. Would he have joined Al Qaeda in this decade?

The big question is what Saddam would have done after 9/11. I will never forget the image of Saddam celebrating after the attacks. I don't think he was a participant in the 9/11 attacks, but he was thrilled and certainly would have supported an escalation to the war. After the invasion of Afghanistan, many of the worst terrorists escaped to Iraq for safe haven. The most famous was al-Zawqawi, the guy who beheaded so many Americans on video. There is no doubt that Iraq would have been the primary training ground and maybe the launching point for Al Qaeda attacks against America.

I am grateful our military crushed Saddam, his sons, and the Ba'ath Party in Iraq. We should have taken them out after the first Iraq war. There are liberals in this country that want to send Bush and Cheney to jail because this was an illegal war in their minds. I wish they would turn their energies toward fighting dandelions or some other issue that will not drive me so crazy.

Thank you military for what you accomplished in Iraq.

By: William H Watson
Check out Bill's blog at http://www.questionsbybill.com