High taxes and an anti-business climate in Illinois are driving people and business to leave the state. The latest news comes from Caterpillar, a company that is resisting the latest tax increases by contemplating a move out of the state.

The cold reality is that Illinois government is spending more money that it takes in. Expenses exceed revenues. It’s not really all that complicated to understand. The complicated part is getting people to understand what to do about it. Democrats think the solution is to increase revenues by raising taxes. Unfortunately that’s causing people and companies like Caterpillar to look hard at their finances and consider moving to a more friendly tax climate.

We’ve demonized business and the wealthy for so long now that the public’s knee-jerk reaction to news stories like this is to assume that such a move would be caused by greed. “Those corporate fat-cats are moving because they want to line their pockets!”.

What people tend to forget is that companies like Caterpillar employ a lot of people that otherwise wouldn’t have any jobs at all. Companies like Caterpillar are owned by many shareholders and people’s retirement funds are counting on them to make money. If Caterpillar doesn’t make smart business decisions, a lot of people will be affected, and most of them won’t be those supposed “fat-cats”.

There are plenty of other consequences of a company like Caterpillar moving out of Illinois. Many people in the Peoria area would lose their jobs, for starters. Property tax collections would take a huge dive, both from the direct loss of the Caterpillar properties and also from people having to sell their houses to move away, depreciating the housing market. Government agencies such as schools that depend heavily on those property taxes would have to make cuts. Local businesses who do business both directly with Caterpillar and also with the employees would suffer. It would take years, if ever, for Peoria to recover from such a loss.

Another town that could see a huge loss is Bloomington, the home of State Farm Insurance. Tax revenues drop because of the slow economy, government expenses climb because the Democrats have never met an entitlement program they don’t like, and the response is to try and soak a company like State Farm for more taxes. There will come a time when they will be pushed too far and it will make financial sense to pull their operations out of Bloomington, leaving a massive hole in the economy behind.

When will it get bad enough in Illinois that people finally wake up and quit voting Quinn and Madigan and the rest back into office? How many companies need to leave? How many people need to leave? The corruption just keeps getting worse and the debt keeps growing. If we can’t convince people to make a real change in leadership in this state the next election cycle, we’re doomed.

The Environmental Protection Agency was founded in the early seventies, like to many other socialist big-government agencies. Over the last 30 years, it has grown to a budget of over $10 billion and 17,000+ employees. Whether it has made a positive or negative impact on our country is a matter of opinion, but the fact is, it costs the American people a lot of money.

So, what would happen if we shut down the EPA? When the idea comes up of shutting down a major government agency like the EPA or DOE, a lot of people immediately think about the things that won’t happen. Some claim that corporations will dump waste in the oceans or CO2 will kill us all.

Since I happen to think the EPA does little good, if any, what I usually think of first is what would happen to the 17,000+ employees and their families if they lost their jobs? It sounds terrible to want to put those people out of work, so what should be done?

Today when I looked up the budget and staffing numbers, I found pretty much what I expected. The EPA costs almost $600,000 per employee to run. Now, obviously that’s not all salaries. There are other expenses such as utilities, office buildings, etc… But, it’s pretty clear that the money saved by shutting down the EPA would be more than sufficient to prop up those 17,000 people until they could find new jobs, plus save us a lot of money in the federal budget.

Also, keep in mind that that $10 billion isn’t producing anything. It’s not adding value to goods or providing services to people who want them. It’s just paying for an organization to come up with rules and apply them to the people. When a dollar circulates through the economy without adding value, it does nothing to stimulate that economy. Also, when that dollar is diminished in value because the hands it passes through all tear off a piece, it depresses the economy.

So what would happen if we shut down the EPA? Well, there would be an immediate 17,000 additional unemployed. The $10 billion saved would reduce the deficit, which would increase both consumer and world confidence in our economy. When confidence increases, people spend more and businesses expand and hire more, which in turn puts those 17,000 back to work.

Amazing, isn’t it? The free-market economy is a beautiful thing when government gets out of the way and let’s it work like it is supposed to.

The big news is, there’s a planned pay freeze for several million government employees for 2011. It’s projected that it will save $2 billion in 2011, $28 billion after five years and more than $60 billion over 10 years.

I have a couple problems with this whole thing. Firstly, I have my doubts that a salary freeze is really going to translate into money savings. Keep in mind, base salary is only part of the equation. There are bonuses, overtime, benefits… It’s not exactly an original idea to shift money from one area to another in budgets. I’ll be surprised if any of these people that are having their pay frozen truly end up with less.

Next, government projections are just that – projections. They’re based on estimates that are truly more like guesses. The so-called experts cherry-pick the facts that they like and combine them with their guesses to come up with projections that their bosses want to hear. That $60 billion over 10 years is assuming the best of all conditions.

Lastly, who exactly is going to analyze the results after 2011, 2015, and 2020? Who is going to look at what savings were really seen and report back to us on the success or failure of the plan? No one, of course. No one will even remember. By then some other idiotic government power-grab will be big news. The 2012 elections will roll in and the Democrats will point to this stunt as an example of how important it is to them to reduce the deficit.

Prepare yourself, between now and November 2012, you can expect an avalanche of this kind of nonsense from the Democrats.