I think it’s not a choice between more important, less important. Is it more important to eat food or breath? Well, you’ll die if you don’t breath and you’ll die if you don’t eat food. So I guess they’re BOTH important.
Currently we had a president who cut taxes which did increase revenue (we’ve had record tax funds into government just about every year) but he also increased spending. Now, not ALL of that increase was his fault. We were attacked and so we did get bi-partisan support to go to war. But some of it WAS his fault.
Now, we just had a study done, I think it was in Time Magazine but it could have been another publication, that basically said that if you give the rich a tax break they tend to spend more money in the public sector and it is the increased spending in the public sector that creates demand for products and services and increased demand drives the need to increase supply and thus creates jobs which reduces unemployment and eventually raises wages due to a decreased supply of people needing jobs.
I find this totally hilarious, because I believe there was a powerful politician who basically said the same thing in the 1980s that gave us the economic stimulus package that generated the economic utopia of the 1980s and 1990s. I wonder who that was. Can anyone remember? Was it Ted Kennedy or Jimmy Carter? Oh shoot, I just KNOW it has to be one of those guys…. Anyhoo, perhaps the solution to the problem is two fold:
1) Gut the Federal Government. If the US Constitution does not explicitly give responsibility for something to the US Government, then the US Government should cut all funding to that area and inform the states they will have to pick up the slack, somehow. This alone should cut the Government budget by at least 33% (since I believe the Military is in the 40-50% of the budget atm. I don’t have hard numbers on that, so don’t think it’s a coups if you come up with numbers that show my statement is wrong.)
2) Slash taxes. If number 1 is implemented, states will have to double, triple or even quadruple taxes (in the case of some states, this will mean they will have to start taxing) but this change should have less of an impact on the individual’s pocketbook. For one thing, it is MUCH cheaper for Illinois to run a program for Illinois then it is for the US Government to run a program for Illinois, primarily because the other 49 states are like children and will want the same program too if it’s being provided at the Federal level. That alone means it is 98% cheaper for Illinois to run the program then it is for Uncle Sam.
2a) Not to mention that states will be better equipped to tailor their program to their own needs and thus, the programs will be much more efficient at accomplishing the tasks that they are designed for. (Even more so if States are wise enough to apply the same procedure to themselves, allowing the counties to administer the programs instead of the state as a whole.)
2b) And, since no government body is good at anything, and if the Feds do not enforce a monopoly, this will allow private industry to supplement the failures of the states and maybe take over the program entirely at an even more efficient manner.
2c) And, since no government body is good at anything, but some are better then others, people who feel that their local government sucks, can move a short distance across the border to the neighboring government. For instance, if you live in Chicago it’s only a 30 minute drive to Wisconsin or Indiana. That gives you a choice of three nations in the alliance. If you live in Colorado you have a choice of eight nations in the alliance! Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, depending on what part of Colorado you live in these may be more or less convenient then other states.