Spending and Jobs
Following Tuesday’s commentary on a Tax Foundation report, MO Rage has written another post that has me scratching my head. This one’s about government spending, and it contains the following statement:
I totally agree that we need to reduce spending but, frankly, not on jobs.
All government spending translates into a job for somebody. Even when it’s as simple as sending checks directly to citizens, government spending keeps people employed producing the envelopes and printing the checks.
So cutting government spending puts people out of work — there’s no way around it. The good news is that governments that spend less can tax less, leaving more wealth available for job creation in the private sector.
It’s something to keep in mind when state agencies try to ward off spending cuts, as they did earlier this week.
I’d like to direct readers to the excellent Policy Pulse coverage of the recent spending cut hearings in Jefferson City, written by the Show-Me Institute’s ace reporter Audrey Spalding and intern Andrew Guevara:
Comment by Eric D. Dixon — December 10, 2009 @ 4:58 p.m.
MO Rage also writes that we should cut the defense department in half, but he or she is opposed to spending cuts that hurt jobs. As if the defense budget does not involve any jobs, i.e. thousands of jobs at Boeing right here in St. Louis. This does not mean I am automatically opposed to all defense cuts; just that it would involve jobs even more than most other government cuts, and MO Rage appears oblivious to that.
Comment by David Stokes — December 11, 2009 @ 2:33 p.m.