I am sure you have read many articles that "Trickle Down Economics" doesn't work. Some so-called economic experts have said this and even some individuals that write letters to the editor of this paper have written as much.
They are the usual suspects that I know most of you who read these letters know too well.
I want to say that they are speaking out of both sides of their months. They do believe in "Trickle Down Economics," but from a different source, the federal government!
The left and the right don't disagree that the money goes from the top down, from funds controlled by small groups of people down until it reaches the bottom of the pile.
They disagree who that 1 percent, the small groups of people should be. Should they be CEOs or Washington officials? Does the economy grow when businesses hire workers to make products or provide services, or does it grow when as much money as possible is vacuumed up by the government into a central revenue stream, which it uses to fund infrastructure projects, subsidized companies and government employment?
Companies redistribute resources down through their chain of officers and employees, then to other companies which redistribute them in the same way (not counting the incidental benefits created by their economic activity).
Governments are no different. A government redistributes resources through its higher officials, down through its vast army of employees, various companies that lobby for grants or contractors that work for the government.
The process is not all that different from the way that companies do business. The difference is that some of the "product" created through this process consists of providing social services and a social safety net to those on the bottom.
Setting aside the question of whether the "product" should exist, the great deception of the current system is that the "product" is actually incidental.
The system does not exist for the benefit of the "product," but for the benefit of the process. The system exists for the benefit of the system, for the benefit of its officers and employees.
That is one of the major reasons why Social Security is insolvent. Social Security was the "product" but the money meant for it was spent on the "process" and on other "products" that would provide more of an advantage for those in control of the system.