The economic reasoning for the JOBS Act of 2010
Published on February 9, 2010 by Tom Graves
The economy is job one of the legislature and that must begin with getting Georgians back to work. A working Georgia will be the economic beacon and national leader in recovering from this recession.
Some believe that state revenues must increase to stimulate the economy. Some suggest we stimulate the economy by increasing government spending and regulating businesses to ensure a stable marketplace. Others maintain that raising taxes during tough economic times would bring in revenues needed to maintain a stable government. All these beliefs lead to one overarching philosophy of utopian socialism, an economic system based on equal outcomes, not equal opportunity. These “solutions” all lead to a government take-over of private businesses and government control over the free-market system.
Do these options sound familiar? We’ve heard these “solutions” presented to us by Atlanta Journal Constitution columnist Jay Bookman and Alan Essig of the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. To them, I say nonsense, slow down, catch your breath and read the bill. More taxation, litigation and regulation can only have negative effects on our economy. They perpetuate the strangulation of private businesses and further restrict private citizen’s ability to spend and invest their own money.
The greatest stimulus for a robust economy comes from an economic environment that encourages opportunity, productivity and innovation. The hard-working people of Georgia - not big government - are the key to our economic prosperity. If consumers and investors have confidence in the economic environment, then personal spending, investing and job creation will occur. The Jobs,Opportunity, and Business Success Act of 2010 (JOBS Act of 2010) does just that and there is nothing more important for this legislature than to focus on creating jobs and opportunities for our communities. This legislation is designed to stimulate the state’s economy by providing tax credits, cuts and incentives to create, expand and attract new businesses in Georgia.
Essig would have you believe that balancing budgets, stimulating the economy and bringing in state revenues is a complicated web of mathematics. They throw out large numbers and complicated equations to convince the populace that their way is the only way to recovery.
Let’s keep this simple. State revenues mainly come from two areas - income taxes and sales taxes. If people aren’t working, they aren’t paying taxes and state revenues continue to decline.
My proposal is just as simple - provide private businesses incentives to hire somebody off of unemployment and then reward them with a tax break. This puts Georgians back to work, generating state revenues and increasing personal spending in to the market place. In addition, increases in unemployment “benefits” are leaches to state revenues. So why not encourage businesses to end their reliance on draining government programs? The quarterly tax credit I’ve proposed will have far less impact on state revenues than the already draining effect of unemployment benefits.
Businesses will receive tax breaks only after creating a job. Once a job is created, then wealth is created. This wealth then results in spending. Spending results in supply demands for goods. And now the supply side theory of economics is in full swing and another job is created. State revenues will grow during this time because somebody is employed. This kind of stimulus is truly a free-market solution that empowers the private sector and will drive Georgia’s economic recovery.
Georgia’s ranking as one of the highest economic outlook states in the nation and having the lowest debt per capita among the 50 states makes our great state very attractive to employers and employees. Add this to the free-market economy solutions of the JOBS Act of 2010 and we will announce to the World that Georgia is open for business.
Representative Tom Graves represents the citizens of House District 12, which includes portions of Bartow, Gordon, and PickensCounties. He was elected into the House of Representatives in 2002, and is currently the Chairman of the 9th District Caucus. He serves as the Vice-Chairman of the Motor Vehicles Committee and is also a member of the Health & Human Services, Transportation, and Ways & Means Committees.
List of Similar Posts
Driving Miss Economy
Short Term Economic Stimulus will be just that
Stimulus plan cure worse than disease
A Brief Argument for Government Spending
The march to socialism
Doomsday approaches for citizens of Georgia
Populist tactics keep Americans distracted from bigger picture
Killing industry to save the planet
To spend or not to spend
Barack Obama: Savior of the middle class?


Print Article
Respond to Article
Share this Article
Subscribe with RSS

Responses to "The economic reasoning for the JOBS Act of 2010"
Thrillhouse made a comment on February 11, 2010:
I don’t even necessarily oppose that kind of legislation, but the amount of false dichotomies set up and lectures in high school economics make this nearly unreadable. I do, however, find some comic irony in the fact that you write columns like this and then turn around and claim you support the FairTax on your website (which, by the way, would seem much more professional if you took the time to actually proofread anything you wrote).
Just to lay some groundwork here, somewhere in that painfully simplistic lecture in economics you point to the fact that our problems essentially boil down to a lack of spending (consumption).
The problem with the FairTax as it relates to this overly simplistic hypothesis you’ve constructed (well, aside from the very simple conceptual idea that it’s aim is to discourage consumption and encourage investment), is that it targets the exact people you’re claiming you think are going to jump start the economy. If you use the new fangled “complex webs of numbers” that the snobbish liberal elite push on people so that they can fool you with their witchcraft and alchemy, you’ll notice a very disturbing piece of data when you decide to break down what percentage of the tax burden each income bracket would pay based on their consumption habits by income. Of the overall tax burden, the highest burden (percentage wise) gets shifted away from the wealthy and onto middle and upper middle class families. That’s not even complex or controversial math, it’s simple numbers. And who is very largely responsible for the type of consumption that you claim you’re trying to increase? The same people you’re trying to shift the tax burden to.
You’re either talking out of both sides of your mouth or you don’t quite understand the economic effects of the legislation you’re pushing. I’m not sure which would be more optimistic to assume.
Leave a Reply
THE SENTINEL encourages on-topic, civil discussion on its articles posted online. It is our policy not to screen comments before they are posted or edit them after they are posted. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are off-topic, malicious, libelous or include excessive foul language. THE SENTINEL also reserves the right to turn off all comments on any story it deems necessary.Comments violating copyright law will also be removed.
Users accept the Vistor Agreement.
KSU Student Media staff accept the KSU Media Staff Agreement & Ethics Form.
Users who repeatedly violate this policy will be banned from commenting.
If you have any questions on our comment policy or wish to report a comment that you feel violates these standards, please e-mail a link to the article to the Editor in Chief at eic@ksusentinel.com.