Budgetary philosophy
  By Jim Killebrew

[March 01, 2014]  Listening to the President as he speaks about our economy and his ideas of the budget and comparing it to the republican budget proposal, it seems evident there are two different philosophies at play regarding how a budget should be formulated and implemented.

The Administration makes no mistake about clearly wanting to drive the US economy into a European-style socialist welfare state. Redistribution and equalization of wealth by taxing more and more of the "wealthy" wage earners, business owners and corporations will drive the government to grow at exponential rates, while at the same time stifle the growth of the private sector of business. As the rate of government grows at greater speeds it will take more agencies to be created with more policies and regulations to implement more and more programs. The case in point is what we are experiencing right now during the roll-out of the health care services known as Obamacare. The outcome of that venture has led to a louder call for a single point of service for health delivery that will be overseen by the government.

The opposition republican budget proposal by contrast, is based on the reduction of the huge debt looming over our collective heads projecting well into the next two generations. The republican budget significantly pays down that debt over the next ten years as well as delivers a balanced budget to actually reduce the spending. It is based on pro-growth, market-style free enterprise practices with fairness in the taxing revisions leading to lower taxes for everyone and with the more wealthy Americans paying a higher rate. It also proposes about a three and one-half growth during the ten-year period. The republican proposal also presupposes the appeal of the Obamacare plan eventually, likely after the November 2014 election if the Senate assumes a republican majority.
 

The question man in America asks, is what makes the European-style socialist welfare system so attractive that so many of the more liberal Americans and the Administration wants to move in that direction? When the world media allows a glimpse into the inner workings of the countries like Spain and Greece, we have seen nothing as positive as the American free enterprise system. In fact, we are witnessing the destruction of those economies; they are going bankrupt, credit ratings falling, value of the monetary systems plummeting, joblessness increasing, the ranks of the poor increasing and people even rioting in the streets due to the austerity measures that must be taken because these governments have run out of money.

Would someone who really knows the details of the economy systems explain why the President wants to fundamentally change the free market system of growth practiced in the United States since the beginning in favor of the European model?

When a robber takes the wealth of a person by force and tries to play Robin Hood with the money, the people receiving the money make a hero out of the Robin Hood. What they don't realize is that the people who have the wealth establish more ways to secure their wealth. In fact, they will move their wealth to places where they know it is safe from the robber. Ultimately the people who are being fed by Robin Hood begin to suffer because the wealthy have greater security for their money and they remove it from circulation by placing it in investments in other more safe locations. When the government practices the "Robin Hood" tactics of taking from the taxpayers and giving it to those who do not pay taxes, why do people believe there are different consequences from the "Robin Hood" experience?

A liberal thinks the economic "pie" is finite because they are socialist thinking and believe it can never grow. A conservative, on the other hand, believes that through free market capitalism the economy can continue to grow and the wealth spreads naturally, hence the pie gets bigger and bigger as people work, invest and grow their businesses. The greatest killer of "pie-growth" is to adopt the values of a liberal's economic principles. By the way, the most effective "stimulus" is for each American who pays taxes is allowed to keep more of the money earned. Money in the hands of millions of Americans across the land that they have earned creates a great boon to the economy when they spend it on products and services.

The main point of socialism is to keep people from being wealthy. The purpose of socialism is to "spread the wealth" and "redistribute" from those who are wealthy to those who are not. The problem is that it never works; it is one-sided. Those who are working and generating income are the only ones who have to share their income. Those who are not working are receivers and never have to share anything. Currently in America there are 40 percent of the adult citizens who do not pay any taxes. So who is sharing the wealth?

[By JIM KILLEBREW]