Posted on 03/22/2017 5:02:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
"Devastating!" shouts Chuck Schumer. Even Republicans are unhappy. Big spending "conservative" congressman Hal Rogers calls President Donald Trump's proposed budget cuts "draconian, careless and counterproductive."
But Trump's cuts are good! Why do politicians always assume that government spending helps people? It always has unintended consequences.
Foreign aid is attached to idealistic notions like ending global poverty and making friends abroad. Politicians also thought that by rewarding countries that behave well, America could steer the whole world toward responsible practices like holding elections and allowing companies (especially U.S. companies) to operate without interference. The young nation of Israel could be propped up with money for its military defense and infrastructure projects.
But today, the U.S. sends money to friends and foes alike, and it's hard to know what those countries do with it. Israel gets billions of dollars -- but we give even more money to Israel's enemies.
Money we give to impoverished nations seldom reaches the poor people we want to help. The funds routinely go to the kleptocrat governments that made those countries such horrible places to live in the first place. Our gifts prop up authoritarians, making it easier for them to avoid free market reforms.
We're just as dumb about spending at home.
The Department of Education doesn't teach any kids. It imposes standards on local schools that make it harder for them to experiment. It hires bureaucrats who do endless studies -- instead of letting competition show us what teaching methods get the best results.
The Department of Education also promotes government-subsidized student loans that trick students into thinking that no matter which school they pick, no matter their major, they will graduate with useful, marketable skills. Many go deeply into debt just when they should be getting a start in life.
The Department of Agriculture tips American elections. Presidential candidates promise farm subsidies to try to win the early Iowa primary. Politicians say the subsidies will rescue struggling small farms, but they rarely do. Most of the money goes to big, well-connected agribusiness. They shouldn't get subsidies any more than other businesses should.
The so-called "war on poverty" has now cost almost $22 trillion, about three times what we've spent on all America's wars. Yet poverty endures, even as markets and technology should have eliminated most of it.
Before the war on poverty began, Americans were steadily lifting themselves out of poverty. The well-intended handouts increased dependence and stopped that natural progress. They perpetuated poverty.
Obviously, some federal programs do help people. When you spend trillions of dollars, some of it will be put to good use.
But that doesn't mean the Economic Development Administration, "Essential" Air Service, Community Services block grants or even Meals on Wheels deserve a penny more of your taxes.
"There is no magic money tree in Washington," the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards reminds us. At DownsizingGovernment.org, he lists many more programs that ought to be cut. Even when programs do good things, he says correctly, "It is more efficient for the states to fund their own activities -- school and antipoverty programs -- because doing so eliminates the expensive federal middleman."
Having our money back means being able to pay for things we choose as individuals -- including helping out the poor more effectively than the government.
Finally, even areas where Trump wants to boost spending, like the military, should be cut. We spend more on defense than the next seven nations combined -- China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Kingdom, India, France and Japan.
Are we less likely to be attacked because of it? Less hated? No. Often, our expensive "defense" puts us in harm's way.
Trump and Paul Ryan do deserve credit for demanding that spending increases be offset with cuts elsewhere. But it's a tragedy that they didn't use this moment to try to cut more, and to cut the biggest unsustainable spending: Medicare and Social Security. Not addressing those entitlements today will mean more suffering for the poor and the elderly in the future.
Do the humane thing. Keep hacking away at that budget.
EVERY spending program has constituents, and the continuance of them is often contingent upon how loudly the affected entities are able to complain about the “unfairness” of potential or sometimes very real cuts.
I predict that every cut proposed by the president will be overturned by congress. In most areas they will increase the spending. Think that’s an exaggeration? Just watch and see...
I predict that the cuts will be implemented as a reduction in force at the various agencies and departments. RIF’s reduce the work force and thus the expenditure.
RIF’s result in a surplus
The only one I have any problem with is Social Security: That is money taken from us at gunpoint and I want mine back with interest.
You want to cut having everybody and his brother on it after Daddy dies, thats one thing and of course only citizens should be eligible.
But every reform measure wants to target old people by moving the retirement goal posts.
You want to make it a truly retirement program, I think that would be enough to make it solvent for a long time.
Another option would be to remove it from the general fund...you know like it used to be until the dumblecrats got ahold of it. [Tho I note that no pubbie congress has even mentioned restoring the program to “lockbox” status.]
I appreciate the optimism. I pray you are right...
All taxes are taken at gunpoint. Why single out SS taxes for special treatment? Why not ask for all of your money back? It will remain what it has always been a welfare state entitlement designed to make our elderly into wards of the kind generous loving Democratic Party and Federal government.
There is that, of course. I do doubt such a thing would ever happen. The program COULD be completely dismantled and the funds given back to everyone with interest! but that will not happen.
I single out social security because it was supposedly your money the benevolent gummint was going to set aside for you.
Other taxes? You do not have any reasonable expectations of seeing a direct impact. SS was designed to be different.
I’ve often said we need to have a “War on Prosperity” since we’ve seen how well the “War on Poverty” and “War on Drugs” have worked.
Social Security was a con from day one. It’s still a con. When it collapses, it will be because no con can survive forever in the same form. Mathematics won’t permit it.
The first person to receive Social Security paid in $18. She received more than $20,000 in return. Some else has to pay in $20,000 and receive back $18 for the books to balance. But they always do.
From it’s very first day of SS money was taken from workers and given to others some of whom had not paid a single cent into the program. It was welfare from day one. The SC has ruled that it is welfare more than once I believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.