In Tea Party Advocates Who Scorn Socialism Want a Government Job Bloomberg journalist Heidi Przybyla just doesn’t seem to get it:
Tea Party activists, who are becoming a force in U.S. politics, want the federal government out of their lives except when it comes to creating jobs.
More than 90 percent of Tea Party backers interviewed in a new Bloomberg National Poll say the U.S. is verging more toward socialism than capitalism, the federal government is trying to control too many aspects of private life and more decisions should be made at the state level.
At the same time, 70 percent of those who sympathize with the Tea Party, which organized protests this week against President Barack Obamaâ€™s health-care overhaul, want a federal government that fosters job creation.
They also look to the government to rein in Wall Street, with almost half saying the government should do something about executive bonuses.
Ms. Przybyla seems to be overlaying the socialist mentality on top of a movement for individual liberty.
As Third Partiers ourselves, SHTF Plan also wants a federal government that fosters job creation. But this doesn’t mean that we need the federal government to provide those jobs for us.
What the individual liberty movement is looking for is the right to make our own choices – and this includes small businesses, which produce some 80% of the jobs in America.
When we suggest that the federal government should foster job creation, it doesn’t mean we want them to create short-term, unsustainable census jobs.
What it means is that the federal government should step away from central economic planning, which is what they have been doing for the last 30 years, and let the free market create the jobs.
It’s a fairly simple concept really:
- Lower taxes on all individuals, or simply eliminate all payroll taxes completely and go with a consumption tax like the fair tax. This will put more money in peoples’ pockets, allowing them to spend more money in the consumer economy. In an effect that may surprise big government types, this would actually increase the revenues of businesses, allowing them to produce more goods and services, which leads to more job growth.
- Next, the government should think about taxes on capital gains, investments and retirement funds. Again – eliminate them. The money saved by these tax cuts will not just sit in a bank account. It will either get reinvested back into the economy or will be used to buy consumer goods and services. See the above point for why that is good for job creation.
- Next, government should eliminate the burdens on small business – yes, taxes again. They should also work for REAL health care reform. Not the kind that is going to force businesses to pay more to private health insurers who are now anticipating sky rocketing health care costs as a result of nationalized health care. Businesses who cover all or part of their employees’ health care plans are getting hammered and will continue to get hammered going forward as rates continue to rise and they are eventually forced to drop health care altogether and offer a “public” option.
- True health care reform: The problem, of course, that is not discussed, is that the real cost of health care is not from greedy insurance companies that make very little profit margin, it’s from the hospitals that charge $35,000 for a two day visit to the hospital for a broken arm. (Don’t get us wrong, we’re no fans of insurance companies, but we needed to make the point). If anything, the federal government could help level the playing field, so that cash payers, the insured and the uninsured all pay the same price for the same care. Health care is a complex topic and the solutions are not as simple as just letting the government take over. The average consumer with insurance easily spends $5000 a year to cover the costs. Allowing companies to compete across state lines, allowing companies to offer exclusive catastrophic coverage and other changes could help save thousands of dollars a year for working families, families that would then spend that money elsewhere, once again boosting job creation.
In regards to executive bonuses, it is not clear whether or not the poll differentiated between bailed out corporations or non-bailed out companies. Ms. Przybyla seems to believe that the limited government types in the Tea Party want the federal government to control how a private business pays its employees.
Ideally, if you mismanage your company, then you go out of business. But, since that is not a possibility for too-big-too-fail corporations in today’s government-is-the-savior world, then we need to have this discussion. If your company has become a ward of the state because of managerial incompetence, and the taxpayer is footing the bill so you can pay your rent and Mercedes car payment, then yes there should be limits on bonuses and executive pay. By accepting a bailout, you have become a government employee, thus, the government sets your salary. You either agree to this when you get your bailout, or you go broke.
If you are a private business that has made the right decisions, then pay yourself and your employees whatever you want. You deserve it.
The job of the government is to provide equal protection to all citizens. In this respect, we need the federal and state governments to enforce some laws. Especially those dealing with the protection of individual liberty and personal property. This means enforcement of existing securities regulations, insurance regulations, etc.
So, it’s not that Third Partiers are looking for a handout. If the federal government wants to play a roll, fine, as long as it does not infringe on our freedom and create entitlement programs that burden a group of people that have the ability with paying for those that have a need.
Protect us, serve us, but stay out of our business. That will create jobs. That will create innovation. That will build real, sustainable, long-term growth and wealth in America.