Raising Indiana’s sales tax by 20 percent last year and my property taxes by 50 percent this year did little to help poor Hoosiers, you or me. Most poor people do not gain with anyone’s higher taxes. The poor pay a higher percentage of their income in sales tax than wealthier people. The poor pay higher property taxes when their rents rise.

Thanks to way we vote, we work longer and longer each year to pay for others to spend our hard-earned money inefficiently and unwisely. This goes against best economic wisdom. Smith told us that we’d be much wealthier as a nation, and our poor would be better off, if we took economic decisions away from our relatively few leaders and returned it to individuals who earned money, even if selfishness drives their spending.

Individuals spend their own money more wisely than government bureaucrats spend money for them. Individuals spend their dollars to buy better goods and services. They get more results for each dollar they give to private charity than government welfare programs. Money in competitive private sector is almost always more wisely and effectively used than giving it to a government.

But worse, government jobs come at expense of others’ productivity and are economically unproductive. Government jobs produce no wealth, which is created only by selling products and services that people want to buy. This means that governments – beyond their essential judicial, electoral and record keeping rolls – are pure dead weight on productivity and wealth of nations.

Politicians should take heed of Adam Smith’s moral and economic ideas. Smaller governments – and fewer decisions by chosen few – are essential for more job creation, greater prosperity, better use of money and more community wealth. Wealth is best assured – not by a new government program – but by more economic freedom from government.

In a voucher system, schools would compete for not only tax dollars, but also for best teachers. No longer could state require schools to hire only teachers with same teaching credentials. Doctors, lawyers and practicing scientists could finally teach without stamp of approval by some lesser-educated bureaucrat.

With vouchers, each school would be its own self-governing entity, and every student would be given an equal civil right to an equally gratifying education, regardless of his or her background, financial status or neighborhood. Inherent in a voucher system are principles of efficiency, equality and freedom of choice.

Not surprisingly, Sweden provides universal voucher education for its students. Swedish parents may send their children to any school – government or independent – without paying fees. In only a few years, this policy has inspired an enormous growth in innovative independent schools and encouraged improvements to municipal schools.

Here in America, despite its reputation as champion of equality, Democratic Party is one of voucher education’s fiercest opponent. This is because vouchers threaten teacher unions, who put job security, pay and other special interests of their members ahead of best interests of our children and communities.

Vouchers offer choice, competition and entrepreneurship in education, which are three things missing in our present Soviet delivery system. Vouchers are likely only way to not only improve public education, but to save it from its decaying old self.