Government Does Create Jobs

My husband's letter to the local paper ran Saturday. http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/letters16-5l5phb0-159253585.html (Scroll down to his letter--three or four letters down.) It rebutted an earlier letter that contended that only the private sector can create jobs. I would add to his remarks that were it not for the federal government, Boeing and Haliburton would be so small they would qualify for Small Business loans -- except that those loans are provided by the federal government. My own brother and his wife who consistently vote Republican, which is all for eliminating government jobs, held only government-provided jobs their entire adult lives. Go figure. Here's my hubby's letter:

Government does create jobs

Letter writer Don Gableman is wrong on many counts in asserting that government can't create jobs ("Only private sector can really create jobs," Your Views, June 9.)

One is, "the recession will last a long time." The recession ended more than two years ago, and the economy has been growing since, albeit slowly thanks to adversarial political impediments.

Second, government spending not only creates jobs (think military, police and fire protection, defense contracting, infrastructure building, environmental protection), but many successful businesses benefit directly and indirectly from government aid in the form of subsidies, grants, tax breaks and laws the private sector lobbies for.

Economically strong countries have strong government involvement. Germany, for instance, has the most robust major economy. It also has strong unions.

Former President George W. Bush's eight years in office defy Gableman's contention that lowering taxes makes the economy stronger. Bush's massive tax cuts, along with other budget-busting actions, facilitated an economic disaster, which President Barack Obama has being trying to salvage ever since, with no help from an obstructionist Congress.

Finally, rather than wanting to raise taxes, Obama has cut taxes, and spending during his administration has grown at a far slower rate than it did under Bush and other Republican presidents.

Hilbert H. Hayslett Jr. 
South Milwaukee

Want Smaller Gov't? Elect Democrats

The GOP mantra, particularly among candidates for elected office, is that the Democratic Party is the party of big government and that the electorate should trust the GOP to reduce the size of government.

Historical facts, however, belie that.

I've often heard/read that the federal government has actually grown in Republican presidential administrations. An article that provides statistics says:
 
"Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both increased the size of the bureaucracy, whether or not you count military personnel.  Reagan increased the non-military workforce  by 238,000 employees, and the federal workforce including military personnel by 324,000.  George W. Bush increased the non-military workforce by 53,000 employees, and the federal workforce overall by 77,000.  Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, reduced non-military employees by 8,000 and the federal workforce overall by 6 37,000. Carter came in third behind George H.W. Bush as a small-government practitioner."

This article, as http://www.brendagrantland.com/Blog/BlogRepublican.html, includes a little quiz the results of which are quite interesting and that Democrats should pounce on like a frog on a fly.

President Obama isn't included in this quiz because he wasn't in office long enough when the article was published. But he has been now and while he Obama is constantly accused of bloating the federal government, according to the article "Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan" at
http://www.politicususa.com/en/big-government-obama-reagan, it seems that Obama has not increased the size of government.

Plus, he has either cut or proposed cuts in wasteful spending. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57321244/obama-to-cut-federal-swag-wasteful-spending/ And his federal deficit reduction plan -- which the Republicans rejected after previously backing many of the same policies -- cut more spending the the Republicans alternatives.

Historical facts show that Republicans' claims of being the small government party are false. While they're absolute hawks about cutting spending on public programs that benefit middle and poor Americans, they passionately protect government spending on the much more costly tax breaks, subsidies and other welfare for the rich.

Republicans who promise to cut the size of government remind me of men who beat their wives and girlfriends. They're so sorry and promise to never hit them again. We all know how that goes.

The difference is, Republicans never say they're sorry.