Infrastructure Gap? Look at the Facts. We Spend More Than Europe

Big government advocates seek to substitute “infrastructure” for the “s” (stimulus) word. President Obama’s State of the Union address called for $40 billion to fix the nation’s roads and bridges and also called for a federal infrastructure bank.  On April 29, he called for an additional $4 billion of infrastructure spending. $40 billion here and $4 billion there, and soon you have some real money.

To convince a wary public to spend more with trillion dollar deficits, big government advocates must gin up a national infrastructure emergency that threatens safety, jobs, and well being. Public spending lobbyists are ready to oblige with D+ report cards for  “aging and unreliable” roads, bridges, and ports. Big government advocates substitute scare tactics for the facts that our infrastructure is as good as Europe’s and that we spend more than the European Union on public investment. If we spend as much or more and have inferior infrastructure that is a political failure of untold proportions for which someone should pay.

go to forbes.com

What If the Rich Really Gave Back as Obama Wants?

President Obama tells us that the rich should give back to society. He even knows many wealthy people who want to give back more. (I guess they can’t until their taxes are raised). We learn from him that the rich owe their success not to business acumen and risk taking but to public roads, schools, the courts, food stamps, disability payments, workplace regulation, and other government services. We even owe the first rumblings of the internet to DARPA, unfortunately the research arm of the military-industrial complex. (Or was it Al Gore?).  Obama feels it is only fair that the rich return what the government gave them. What business could survive without access by public road? Fair is fair, after all.

What would happen if we, like France’s socialist state, taxed away seventy five percent of earnings above one and a quarter million and  high-net-worth business executives with  $2.5 million in salary, dividends and rental property pay a marginal rate of 90.5 percent. At such rates, our rich would really be giving back to government what it is due, and perhaps more.  Fair is fair.

With so much “going back,” there is little reason to go forward. The “rich” should just cash in their chips, stop building their businesses or starting new ones, pay their high taxes, and live off their wealth, unless that is taxed away too. After all, the government can “invest” their money in Solyndras,  Volts, and entitlement programs. As Obama claims, government investment has higher returns than private investment.

If Steve Jobs had paid his fair share back to society after he made his first ten million, Apple today would today be a relatively small company worth less than a billion and employing a thousand or so. It would not be the world’s largest company in market cap, it would not employ 60,400 people worldwide, and we would not have the IPads, IPhones, Apps, and other innovative Jobs products, which improve the quality of lives and raise living standards. Apple shareholders would not hold shares worth a half trillion dollars.



go to forbes.com