New York State, a very liberal, Democrat-controlled
state, has had a television ad running for some time bragging about the tax
breaks they are giving companies that expand in, or establish themselves in,
their state. In the ads they describe how valuable lower taxes are for
businesses and how many jobs result from the lower taxes, and they brag about the
expanding economic growth in the areas where the tax advantages are given.
But when Donald Trump talks of lowering taxes in order
to kick-start economic growth and job creation, Hillary and the liberal media
become apoplectic describing the teachers who will be fired and the police and
fire personnel who will lose their jobs because of the lower taxes, and they
wail and moan about how unfair lower taxes are and that the rich just continue
to get richer. I guess there are no teachers nor emergency teams in the parts
of New York State where the advertised taxes have been lowered? If a state or
county cares about teachers, police and fire departments it’s their duty to
provide them for the benefit and the safety of the citizens, even if it means
that the state or county government employees have to be cut back or get
reduced pay. It seems it’s always the citizens who get the shaft when
government money gets low, and not the government entity that is supposed to be
serving them.
If liberal Democrats didn’t lie they would never utter
a word. Does no one in the Democrat establishment ever fact-check anything they
say, and would they admit they are wrong if they determined that to be the
case? In the primary presidential campaign both Hillary and Bernie competed
with each other telling us how much they would raise taxes; it’s what they do.
But the big liberal state of New York is actually campaigning against them,
although neither the state nor the candidates would admit it if they took the
time to think about what’s being presented in the ads and compare the two
positions for accuracy and common sense.
Of course, if taxes are lowered then the government may
need to reduce its expenditures in accordance, but history and logic tell us
that lower taxes help businesses and individual tax payers alike, and in the
long run if government is smaller and more thrifty, all entities are better
off.
But should the conversation we’re having in this
election season be about making government happier, or should it be about serving
the citizens better? People and families fare much better and live more
enjoyable lives when they are allowed by big government to keep more of the
money they earn; after all, it’s their money. And the more of their own money
people are permitted to keep, the more they spend and invest, and the economy
expands as a result of their expenditures, whereas government spending is a net
loss to the economy, and a big loss of both money and liberty to the residents
who have to pay the taxes to support the spending.
