Can Jobs Come From Some Place Other Than Government?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The current campaign cycle is causing lots of attention to be given to “who is responsible for American’s having jobs?” In their quest to keep their jobs, at least two of the incumbent Democrats from Nevada, Senator Reid and now Congresswoman Dina Titus, are pitching the idea that unelecting them by selecting their opponents would be bad for job creation in Nevada. First, it seems somewhat an interesting argument to make – Nevada is the number one state in the United States for unemployment and keeping the people in power who have made this possible would be a good thing?
From the spin being placed on their campaign materials, the two Republicans vying for election have been painted as being out of touch because they’ve supposedly taken the position that it isn’t the government’s job to be getting people their jobs. Well, if it is the federal government’s job to find work for people – what does that say about the system the Democratic incumbents are submitting as being the favorable option? Turning to Wikipedia, we get a definition for the system of government where it is the government’s job to put people to work. Is this the government that we want our elected representatives to be pursuing?
While it is highly unlikely that I will be voting for either of the persons who wish to advance the cause that government spending is the solution to our ailing economy (one because I don’t agree and the other because I don’t live in that Congressional District) – I have to wonder how many voters will be buying into the game plan that government is meeting its proper role by creating or “saving” jobs. For those who consider this as an appropriate purpose for government, with appreciation due to those who have spent more money than we (as a country) have to get the results that have been achieved (please re-refer to the point about Nevada as having the highest unemployment rate in the nation) – doing more of the same makes sense to you?
Whether its candidates for local, state or national office – it would seem that given the track record of how good things government-centric approaches have been working – electing whoever believes in the less amount of government (local, state and national) would seem to be the best plan for voters to take.
The current campaign cycle is causing lots of attention to be given to “who is responsible for American’s having jobs?” In their quest to keep their jobs, at least two of the incumbent Democrats from Nevada, Senator Reid and now Congresswoman Dina Titus, are pitching the idea that unelecting them by selecting their opponents would be bad for job creation in Nevada. First, it seems somewhat an interesting argument to make – Nevada is the number one state in the United States for unemployment and keeping the people in power who have made this possible would be a good thing?
From the spin being placed on their campaign materials, the two Republicans vying for election have been painted as being out of touch because they’ve supposedly taken the position that it isn’t the government’s job to be getting people their jobs. Well, if it is the federal government’s job to find work for people – what does that say about the system the Democratic incumbents are submitting as being the favorable option? Turning to Wikipedia, we get a definition for the system of government where it is the government’s job to put people to work. Is this the government that we want our elected representatives to be pursuing?
While it is highly unlikely that I will be voting for either of the persons who wish to advance the cause that government spending is the solution to our ailing economy (one because I don’t agree and the other because I don’t live in that Congressional District) – I have to wonder how many voters will be buying into the game plan that government is meeting its proper role by creating or “saving” jobs. For those who consider this as an appropriate purpose for government, with appreciation due to those who have spent more money than we (as a country) have to get the results that have been achieved (please re-refer to the point about Nevada as having the highest unemployment rate in the nation) – doing more of the same makes sense to you?
Whether its candidates for local, state or national office – it would seem that given the track record of how good things government-centric approaches have been working – electing whoever believes in the less amount of government (local, state and national) would seem to be the best plan for voters to take.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 6/29/2010 10:02 AM 
Categories: Government
Tags: Unemployment Weak Economy Nevada 2010 Election Limited Government
Categories: Government
Tags: Unemployment Weak Economy Nevada 2010 Election Limited Government
Very well put. In addition, the jobs they are saving are government jobs, not the private sector.
Reply to this