Last time we looked at a proposal by Kristen Gillibrand regarding financial aid for higher education. Let’s take a look at an interesting idea by another strong Democratic contender for next year’s presidential race, Elizabeth Warren.
She is proposing to create a new cabinet-level position called the Department of Economic Development. According to her press release, this new department would have “the sole responsibility to create and defend quality, sustainable American jobs.”
She is going to pay for this department, which will replace the Commerce Department and subsume several other smaller agencies like the Small Business Administration, by using funds from her new tax on corporate profits and rolling back some provisions of the GOP’s 2017 tax law.
There are a couple of things that should be brought to light. Here is the mission statement from the Department of Commerce website:
“The Department of Commerce promotes job creation and economic growth by ensuring fair and reciprocal trade, providing the data necessary to support commerce and constitutional democracy, and fostering innovation by setting standards and conducting foundational research and development.”
Some people view progress as just rearranging what is already there and giving it a new name. And how about that funding stream? I’m all for corporations paying their fare share of taxes, but we have to remember that for many of us with 401K plans and other retirement investments, the returns on those plans come from the very corporate profits she wants to tax.
As a Republican, I look at the fact that unemployment is at its lowest rate in many decades in every category and wonder why we would change anything. The structure seems to be working just fine, and it probably just needed a new top dog with a good background in business instead of politics.
She also wants to roll back provisions of the current tax law to retain more dollars in the federal budget. According to most impartial studies, those tax provisions gave almost all families (not just the wealthy) more spending money last year.
That doesn’t mean everyone’s tax refund was larger. For most of us, it meant more money in each paycheck every two weeks. It is up to me as a taxpayer to adjust my W-4 to affect whether I see the extra funds throughout the year, or whether I allow the government to hold it and give it all back to me in one check in the spring.
These extra dollars allow me to either invest more (creating jobs) or spend more (also creating jobs). This entire proposal sounds like a sleight of hand to me.
Let’s talk about another hot topic, gun control. I just heard on the news that Chicago recorded 50 shootings in a recent weekend, 10 of them fatal.
It is common knowledge Chicago has been governed by Democrats for a very long time and has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. If gun control is so essential and so effective, how is it that this model city has just about the worst rate of gun violence per capita?
There is an old bumper sticker that says, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” That seems appropriate in this case.
Now, I have no issue at all with background checks. We certainly need to ensure up front, before an individual obtains a gun, that they do not have a violent history and aren’t a threat to our country or their neighborhood.
I think that’s where the process should stop, however. Having any type of state or federal registration or licensing system is not going to stop anyone from pulling the trigger on a weapon. Many crimes are committed using stolen firearms, so the only advantage there is that the original owner might get his gun back after someone else commits a crime.
The owner can make the serial number available as part of a police report when the gun is first stolen, so again that negates the need for a central database tracking all of us. The only thing central tracking does is give the government a list of legitimate gun owners who have never been in trouble with the law, and that serves no legitimate purpose in a free society.
These proposals bring us back to the central question facing all voters in the coming 18 months. Will you feel safer, more productive, and more content in a society with a large government presence having more control over your life choices and more of your money, or will you be better off with a smaller government concerned with the primary issues in the constitution, leaving you with more of your own dollars and the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?
A common defense of the country and promotion of interstate commerce are really the only two charges given to the federal government in the documents written by our wise founding fathers. Do we really want to give them more control than that?