Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday indicated congress needs to worry about government jobs more than private-sector jobs, and that this is why Senate Democrats are pushing a bill aimed at shoring up teachers and first-responders.
“It’s very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it’s the public-sector jobs where we’ve lost huge numbers, and that’s what this legislation is all about,” Reid said on the Senate floor.
Yes, the private sector is doing just great. That’s why unemployment is over 9%, with “real” unemployment more like 20%. And, as I noted on Monday, government spending has done nothing but increase at all levels, even as many companies are cutting back.
I wonder if these government jobs include bureaucrats (i.e. government employees the populace is less likely to support than teachers and first responders). So, Harry Reid wants to focus on public sector jobs? The jobs with overinflated taxpayer-funded salaries and benefits, and the ones represented by powerful unions who constantly demand more? Harry Reid evidently believes that the private sector is strong, the government should focus on strengthening the public sector. But wouldn't that, in turn, indirectly weaken the private sector? I'm willing to bet that that is exactly what Reid wants, given how the private sector is evil, or something.Reid reiterated his emphasis on creating government jobs by saying Democrats are looking to “put hundreds of thousands of people back to work teaching children, have more police patrolling our streets, firefighters fighting our fires, doing the rescue work that they do so well … that’s our priority.” He said Republicans are calling the bill a “failure” because they are “using a different benchmark for success than we are.”
And who is going to pay for all of those government jobs? The private sector, to liberals like Reid, is nothing but a fatted calf, or–to switch animals–a golden goose that will never stop laying eggs. They really believe that the people exist to serve the government, rather than the other way around.