EARLIER this year, President Barack Obama famously blamed the nation's economic woes on reductions in government payrolls. “The private sector is doing fine,” Obama said. “Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government.”
That comment was rightly derided for highlighting a belief that government jobs are somehow greater economic boosters than private-sector jobs, which are the true lifeblood of the economy.Do read the rest -- it's an excellent editorial.
This was reinforced again by a U.S. Census Bureau survey of state government jobs. The report found Oklahoma state government has slashed the number of its full-time workers by more than 2,000 and reduced monthly payroll by $4.2 million. Yet Oklahoma's July unemployment rate was 4.9 percent, among the lowest in the nation.
The Democrats are all about creating/protecting public sector jobs and building public infrastructure, which Obama champions. All of this must be funded with tax dollars. But they ignore the need to tax the private sector in order to fund the public sector.
If the private sector is anemic, the public sector suffers. This should be intuitive. What may not be obvious is that a large public sector is detrimental to the private sector. The public sector is inefficient when it comes to spending, especially when it's too big.
A smaller public sector is actually more efficient, and less of a burden on the private sector. This removes at least one barrier to economic growth. Oklahoma knows this, through experience. Obama does not.