Authored by William Robert Barber

There is a particular incongruence bandied about by novelists disguised as journalists, pundits, reporters, and a variance of political cutthroats that just rattle my otherwise calm, cool, and collective demeanor. When discussing the nation’s fiscal balance sheet they present the economy (must have gotten this from the president) as two sectors: the private and the public one. There is only one economically producing sector, and that sector is private.

This is the identical misrepresentation senatorial candidate from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren charges when rebuking the contribution of business versus the contribution from government. The president was advised of Warren’s success and decided that not only was her explanation an excellent political argument but it was the exactness of his progressive ideal. So being the extraordinarily brilliant politician as well as orator exceptional, he thought he would give the declaration a whirl on the national stage.

In the purist disposition the public sector exists in various forms of definition and means only at the pleasure of the private; when the public sector is not restrained by the private the governance of a republic is diminished and the probability of an imposed totalitarian system enhanced.

This liberal progressive ideal however once out of the classroom has no rhetorical legs and worst of all even the non Harvard graduate can cursively scan the context of the president’s speech, (mimicking the Warren reasoning) hear the tone with which it was delivered, and actually deduce that such a comment by the president not only has no merit but is ludicrous.

The only contribution to the nation’s balance sheet induced from the public sector is (as it should be) one of liability. Now let’s deductively cogitate, all monies derived by the government should either originate directly from the profits of business, the investment (of at risk capital) of business owners so to pay for imposed fees, indirectly from the employees of business via the salary paid by business, or from the earning of businesses in the form of equity or bonds purchased by the (at risk of principle loss) investment of private monies.

The indisputable fact is that the public sector feeds off of the success of business and no matter how one may struggle with that truth by juxtaposing public employment with private employment, noting the critical role of police, fire departments, parking meter maids, or a plethora of other such job descriptive(s) everyone of those positions could be filled with private adaptation; the contrary is absolutely impossible.

Yes, roads and bridges where funded by government but for the most part build by private firms run by enterprising entrepreneurs and without a doubt the government funding resulted from tax revenues derived from a tax on business profits.

Ostensibly, the original concept of paying for government services out of annualized (forecasted) earned tax revenue and fees was thought of as the obligation of elected and appointed individuals charged with oversight while managing the apparatuses of government specifically to match the forecast with the actual cost of governing. If there was an overrun on cost then the accepted solution was to implement adjustments that must come from either increasing tax revenue or curtailing the cost of governing. 

Then came the idea of tenure for life; in other words, politicians, in the interest of retaining or attaining power promised much, much, more than could be prudently delivered. The result was creative forecasting, increase fees, taxes, and borrowing against future tax revenue. The citizens bought into the fraudulent inducement and decided that government services were nice so they took the services and stuck their collective heads into the sand.

Politician enhanced their chances of reelection by soliciting confederates that profited from ever rising tax revenues-the unions. The politicians and the unions conspired to control elections thereby controlling governing; the result was the pension obligations clearly evident today as a contingent long-tail contractual liability of the taxpayer.

The intent of original design was to finance a government to act as the knife and fork of service deliverance and with the exception of the physical protection of the State government was construed to be limit of means and capability. Today, government is quite the contrary. Indeed government is engaged in every aspect of a citizen’s life.

And unless there is a populous upheaval…such as electorally winning the executive office and congress thus initiating a wholesale changing of the liberal progressive guard change we conservatives can believe in is impossible.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s