Opinion: Letter to the Editor: The Other Side of Spending

Opinion: Letter to the Editor: The Other Side of Spending

It would be nice if the Gazette Packet could add a measure of fiscal reasonableness to its editorial perspective. Publisher Mary Kimm’s latest expression of disappointment targets the current Administration plan to ravage health care spending for the indigent. But it’s a one-sided complaint.

When the coin is flipped over, you will find the Federal government is — and has been for years — spending beyond its means. This doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with her opinion that the unfortunate should be aided. What’s missing is failing to explain why a government hideously in debt should spend more to do so.

Also one-sided is finding fault with the current Administration initiative to change how much of your income and mine must be remitted to the Federal government. You believe the IRS is not taking near enough from the rich, code for tax ‘em more to spend more.

To spend more, the Federal government must take more. If it can’t get what it needs from taxpayers, then it borrows the rest from an array of lenders. Our largest is Communist China. My point: when governments take money from taxpayers, it reduces capital available to risk-takers with which to produce wealth, the font of all tax revenue.

Risk takers are the wealth makers and job creators. Simply stated, if they don’t produce wealth, then there’s nothing to tax, which means no money for government programs whether for the arts, for defense, for social security or Medicare for that matter.

Since governments don’t produce wealth — they only consume it or, at best, enable it — we’ll all benefit when barriers hobbling risk takers are removed. When they are, fresh tax revenue will drop into local, state and Federal government coffers without so much as changing a single word in today's tax law.

Jimm Roberts