If the government really wanted to create "security" in the financial system they would increase the reserve limit for banks to 25% and print bills to the difference in the money supply.

Roads, bridges, etc... do allow companies to move products - most employers are very happy to pay for these developments. Most of these, however, are paid with gas taxes and tolls (at least here in Canada).

The three points you mention cost money, but make up a tiny percent of the American budget. The main money leaches are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, and the military. The author of that letter mentions welfare, but this minor in the scheme of things.

Don't get me wrong, I think that sending a letter like that is completely unwise, but I agree with the spirit of his letter.

And where did these engineers go to school? Did they attend a public or private university? Was the school subsidized by land grants from the government? Did the students benefit from government-guaranteed student loans? Was the school able to attract professors because of government-sponsored research? Etc., etc.

"The spirit" of his letter is a naive oversimplification - the idea that "lower taxes always increase innovation" is simple to justify, but has little evidence in the real world.

"Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check?"

What he apparently doesn't know is that 75% of the (American) economy falls under "Consumer Spending". That is, if you and I don't blow our paycheck buying clothes and cars, we don't have an economy.

So really, the government is doing The Right Thing(tm) by stimulating the economy. It just upsets this guy because he feels that "Trickle Down" is better, because then the economy is sitting around waiting for this guy to buy/lease another Mercedes.

Economists still argue what works best to stimulate businesses. There's no one right way to do it. Some believe in deregulation. Some believe in low business taxes. Some believe in business-ownership tax incentives. Some think lax credit laws or "high liquid markets" make it happen.

Others, like the letter writer, believe in trickle down and low taxes for business. An aside, anyone with a functioning brain that lived through the Reagan era knows this to be a complete falsehood. Second, its been observed (again, this is like some people say, so take with a grain of salt) that many pro-low tax people cannot control their lifestyle spending.

Therefore, the only way to increase their ability to repay on their debt/save money is to reduce their tax burden.

I've worked for a small business owner like this. They're small minded and arrogant beyond belief. They don't respect the people who work for them. "Penny smart, but pound foolish" as the expression went. He was sure to talk to us, off company time, in 2004 to remind us how dangerous it would be to vote for John Kerry because of his plan to force businesses to offer health care. At the time, none of us working there had health care, except the owner. He had a private policy which he could afford because he paid himself such a high salary. We would make $20/hr (with no benefits) and he would pocket $60/hr from our labors.

He was eventually forced to offer health care anyway, once most of his top employees (and me!) left to companies that provided benefits and didn't treat you like cattle.

The fact of the matter is, if he had the business, he'd hire the employees, as they would be making him money.

Just like the myth that he'd "pay his employee's more" if he didn't have to pay their payroll tax. Odds are, he'd pay his employees the going rate for their labor. Or, if he believes his employees deliver an above-the-market quality of labor, he'd pay them at what is an appropriately scaled competitive wage. The rest he would pocket.

You hire someone because you need someone to do a job. You don't have a mythical set of employees doing nothing/odd jobs simply because you have a "tax surplus".

Yes. Like I said before, you hire for your business based on need. The idea you'd have "more employees" because of a "tax surplus" is a myth. Especially from business owners that condescend to their employees and coerce their votes. I've worked for people just like this guy, and believe me, the idea he is spouting off is ridiculous.

Do you mean keeping your own money? If so, why not just say so?

People hire based on need. But people also hire based on productivity, available workforce, labor laws, legal considerations, tenure, etc. There are all kinds of modifers to the basic "need" I may need another employee, but the bar might be so high to hire them that I don't do it. In that case, existing employees just have to work harder.

Simply because a company has a need doesn't change their break-even analysis. And taxes hit the break-even analysis directly as overhead. Right? Or am I missing something?

(Again, yes, you're right about the break even analysis).

Aside from the basics (roads, schools, telephone lines) that the taxes on his employees pay for, there is one thing the payroll tax pays for as well: Unemployment insurance. Now, nobody wants their business to fail, but the failure rate for businesses is quite steep. This is a tax that literally protects the employees from the bad business decisions made by the business owner, even if he ends up bankrupt.

Unemployment also keeps the supply of labor at a fairly constant rate. Say I worked for one of this business owner's competitors, who went out business, and have a mortgage. To make ends meet, I immediately take a job in an unrelated field. Now, that business cannot hire me because I've stopped looking for a job. (I know, i'm simplifying here, bear with me.) Unemployment lets me spend more time on the market, looking for offers in my field.

Sort of like FDR's Treasury Secretary said about the New Deal. "People don't eat over the long term. They eat everyday."

However, I still think the public education system is one of the few things keeping chaos from breaking out. Consider the 80/20 rule the first 20% of public school money provides the vast majority of the benefit after that it's far more expensive the keep things moving. School could be year round with 3 cycles of children, and each child going every other year and we would spend far less money and still get most of the benefit from teaching reading, writing, basic arithmetic, basic heath etc. Or we could have vouchers and mandatory testing etc. But, removing any from of public school system would be a bad idea.

PS: The real question is always what point do diminishing returns kill the gain. I think we could double the amount of money we spend on education and still come out ahead.

I scoff at the idea that "in America you're limited by you and you alone". It's an idealized extrapolation of our less regimented society, true, but if you grow up as a poor black boy or girl in the ghetto, the forces that are going to keep you there far outweigh the forces that will allow you to leave. See Hurricane Katrina: most of the poor folk that didn't evacuate were too ridiculously poor to even afford to evacuate. The same goes with someone who grows up in a rural town; if they want to leave town and go to college or otherwise make something of themselves, all of the factors in their environment are working constantly against them. I'm tired of people born into privlege (me included) feeling that growing up in an environment where the only barrier to success is your own motivation somehow applies to everyone else.

I mentioned in another submission about how one of the greatest misconceptions of the past 50 years is that our environment is somehow completely unrelated to our well-being and the choices we feel we have. I'm not about to say people can start blaming their bad judgement on their environment, but the other extreme is no better a way of understanding our country.

I was exposed to less of society than most people and in a culture much, much further than societies norms than black culture is.

I'm also dark enough to experience prejudices, if any indeed existed. One thing that life has taught me, you're treated the way you expect to be treated and the way you act accordingly. Perception is reality. You hold the key to how people perceive you.

Everything I have in life I earned by myself, I haven't finished college yet but have a decent job. I taught myself enough *nix and networking experience to move through jobs to where I'm making the mean salary for a single person in my city.

The only barrier that has ever held me back is myself. I've also experience big setbacks in life. If you feel sorry for yourself and stop moving, sure, life sucks you in. If you pick yourself and keep on striving, you can do almost anything you desire to.