money in private hands or government hands?

If you watched the sunday morning news shows this weekend, you would have gathered that much of the conversation centered around how to pay for the extension of tax cuts. Some $4 trillion would be lost from the federal budget if we allow tax cuts to continue.

Let me state my opinion that I do not believe the economic outlook to be as bleak as some charges claim. Unemployment is stuck at about 9.5%, but that does not mean that open jobs do not exist. People who desperately need jobs could easily walk into a placement service and work full time. Locally, AFNI's call center has been hiring since I have moved to town. I assert that most of the unemployed are taken care of well enough that it is in their best interest to sit around and do nothing. I have a friend who collects about $250/wk from the government while smoking weed and playing video games in his mom's basement. He could easily get a job within a month if he wanted to, but he chooses not to. If I can make an analogy, he is using the government's safety net as a comfortable hammock to rest in, not to catch on the way down.

Back to the tax issue...It would be nice if the taxes we collect were spent wisely. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The above paragraph illustrates a waste of $250/wk, and that is only for 1 person. It would be interesting to know who wastes more money....federal government handling of money or private handling of money? While I couldn't find any numbers, I would bet a month's rent that the federal government wastes more. So wouldn't it make more sense to keep the dollars in private hands? Individuals have more incentive to save money that communal groups where accountability is lower.

Now, many will argue that the government's debt is out of control and we need to bring it down. Again, I must disagree. The GDP is about $14 trillion, and the debt about $14 trillion. My sociology professor made an interesting comparison last semester: If you make $100,000 annually while holding $100,000 in debt, your situation is feasible. The ratio is the same, not including the unfunded liabilities of the government, but, in comparison, everyone has unfunded liabilities in their personal life, too.

The message I want you to absorb is this: 1. The federal budget is not as dire as that crazy media will have you believe. 2. Tax cuts are necessary to grow an economy. If taxes are decreased for people who hire, it only makes sense that they will hire more people. There will also be less money wasted because it is in the hands of a person, not a bureaucracy. As for waste in the government, I have no solution to stop the actual waste, and nobody else currently does either. The only solution I can think of is to stop giving money to the people who waste it, including the military, which spends $billions every week. So the way to pay for tax cuts, is to stop feeding the bureaucracy. Eventually, their thirst for money will die out, or they will die out. What do you think? Is my analysis of taxation policy accurate, or am I off the mark a little?

Is the government able to handle all of its responsibilities? Should we the people allow the government to take a chunk of our money to spend however they see fit? Both sides of this argument provide interesting points. On one hand, everybody knows that waste is very high in the government sector. Why should waste matter to politicians who are only look in 2 year election cycles? They can just borrow money, accomplish what they need to, and look good to their constituents. But waste does matter to the regular taxpayer who gets stuck with the bill. On the other hand of the argument, our government does a good job of taking care of people who can not help themselves, protecting our national security, maintaining law and order, and repairing infrastructure. I am interested in knowing where tax money should be spent since it comes directly out of our pockets.