Comment: I agree about cutting

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Nope. (see in situ)

I agree about cutting

I agree about cutting regulations and would include cutting back on licensing.

However, to the extent we need a source for federal taxes, I prefer that they be taken off of the middle class and reassigned to importing corporations. While imports would become more expensive, the middle class would have more to spend. 'Protecting wages chases away jobs and promotes automation" is a mantra that is repeated over and over so the masses will believe it. What's wrong with automation anyway? Automation improves productivity and our standard of living. The founders chose to raise most of their tax revenue through tariffs. History doesn't indicate that the US was stymied in its innovation because it instituted tariffs. The US economy instead improved dramatically.

By limiting immigration to reasonable numbers, demand would go up for US workers. True, many Americans will not work for illegal alien wages but if illegal caste workers weren't available, Americans would be bribed off of unemployment and welfare with higher wages. What does Walmart pay employees in Minot to keep its store open there? If you would rather attract illegal aliens to do the work around Minot and provide them with Obamacare, in state tuition, public schools, food stamps and the rest, you will no doubt save some Minot employers money BUT everyone will have to pay higher taxes to subsidize the employers of illegal aliens. The best way to cut spending on social services is to create a demand for US workers. To do that, a shortage of those workers needs to occur and that can be accomplished by transferring taxation from the middle class to importers while modestly restricting the supply of foreign workers here. If US workers could subsequently demand a larger share of the national economic pie, social service spending would dramatically decrease. What's wrong with that?