The Tea Partiers are right, our government is broken, but their libertarian approach is wrong. Less government is not the answer, big business would love that. No, the answer is better government more concerned about its citizens than its executives.
Uh, no. Big business would not love less government. They, along with many other types of organizations, feed on government spending. Their lobbyists would threaten politicians with potential job losses if government contracts were cancelled. The Tea Partier’s libertarian approach has many benefits. Big and small business, in particular many defense companies, are providing national defense. He says as much in a prior paragraph:
Just as in this financial crisis, where the middle class is burdened with the job losses and wage cuts from problems actually caused by executives on Wall Street, she notes that it would be unfair to solve our deficit problems by cutting retirement and health care benefits to working Americans if the deficits have been caused by enormous increases in military spending and corporate welfare and bank bailouts. Military spending is now over $1 trillion a year when you include all defense expenditures, intelligence agency spending and the homeland security budget. This is more than enough in potential savings to ensure that Americans do not have to work into their seventies to afford reasonable health care and retirement.
So how would big business love that? They wouldn’t. The same with more regulations, which results in more lobbying. Business uses regulations instead of free markets to combat competition, especially upstart competitors. Small firms cannot afford the lawyers and employees to figure out what’s in the regulations. So, there are fewer competitors in heavily regulated sectors.
Less regulations and lower taxes allow more people to start firms and existing firms to hire to expand because its easier than figuring out the maze of forms and legalese that accompanies more regulations and higher taxes.