I cannot help but feel uneasy about the federal government doling out tax dollars like there’s no tomorrow to people who have already demonstrated a failure to adapt and change within their chosen marketplace. It is said that the definition of lunacy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The same goes for giving people money in the face of future high risk of failure. If the private sector– either through loans or outright purchase offers– fails to demonstrate interest in a business entity, why should the government, in the name of its shareholder/taxpayers, be any different?
I have come to the belief that the only true way to “stimulate” the economy without building more credit debt (adding more levels to the “house of cards” that has been the economy to a certain extent) is by doing it with “real” money. And the only “real” money, when you stop and think about it, is what one has in hand. Instead of printing money–setting the stage for inflation– or taking even more from working and investing Americans and giving it to who Congress and its influence peddlers see fit, how about if they instead simply let working people keep more of what they make each and every week for a period of time?
Take a look at your pay stub. Compare the “gross” pay versus the “net”– your take-home portion. Do the simple subtraction and just imagine what you could do if you were allowed to keep a substantial portion of the difference.
Instead of Senator Windbag taking your money, or mortgaging your great-grandchildren’s futures, and giving it to his favorite banker buddies so they may continue their lavish “hot-tubs and champagne” lifestyles, wouldn’t it be nice to instead use it to purchase something you’ve long wanted? Rather than send that sizeable chunk of your paycheck to states, cities, and counties that refuse to eliminate waste, your money, spent as YOU see fit might be just the “stimulating” boost the manufacturer and retailer of your desired product needs.
Why, given the right incentive, some people might decide to save a little for a down payment on a house or that shiny new Chevy truck that catches their eye in the lot of the neighborhood dealer. Who knows? But one thing’s for certain– more money, if people were allowed to keep more of their “gross” weekly earnings– would be instantly and immediately moving around. Some people might pay off debt, thus infusing badly needed dollars to cash-strapped lending institutions. And yes, some others might simply SAVE the money for future needs- nothing wrong with that, either—and would that not help banks, too?
The bottom line is that the more the free wheels of the economy spin while satisfying the needs and desires of people with cash, the more it should rise. And you don’t have to take my word for it, all you have to do is take a look back to some fairly recent history, and let it be your guide. I’m talking, of course, about the Reagan era—that brief moment in time when we truly were a “shining city on a hill.” Rather than “redistributing the wealth,” prosperity happened for many people who, following years of high taxation, got to keep more of the fruits of their labor. And, like wildfire, the newly kept dollars made their way across the economy. Oh, and we managed to win the Cold War during that time as well.
To that end, I have discovered two possibilities that could go a long way towards reinvigorating the Reagan economy’s successes.
