Having been brought up in a “blue” city, I was indoctrinated to believe that the policies of a bigger government were best for Americans. Yet, the real world shattered those beliefs and proved otherwise. As an experienced economist, with a long list of verifiable education and work credentials, it seems undeniable that the most sustainable and most beneficial forms of government are those from the “right“ side of the aisle.

Government does have a meaningful role in oversight or involvement in running the nation, but less government is better than more. Arguments that favor more regulatory controls over our private lives are based upon a lack of true understanding of the negative consequences of these positions.

Letters to the Summit Daily News too often descend into politics of personal destruction while disregarding common sense empirical evidence.

Examples:

• Should a party argue for higher wages while encouraging millions of unskilled, undocumented immigrants to cross U.S. borders?
• Should a party eliminate the current supplies of energy then wonder why gas prices and inflation are spiking (see Economics 101 – supply and demand)?
• Should a party pay higher unemployment bonuses for people not willing to work and then wonder why there are so many people remaining unemployed?
• Should a party believe in “my body, my choice” then argue for mandatory vaccinations and disclosure of medical records?
• Should a party demand to defund the police and then deny blame when crime rates spike?
• Should a party claim they are pro-education but keep schools closed and obstruct school choice?
• Should a party support rent controls and building restrictions then expect developers to build more rental housing?

These are just a handful of current issues in the headlines, and readers often miss the obvious righteous conclusions.