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.