Replies

None of your four proposals would solve the spending problem if the spending is for pork.

The problem is that the few people who benefit from port are affected greatly in a positive way while the many whose taxes are increased a little bit on each piece of pork don't notice the incremental affect.

The Constitution was designed to protect us from this with the tenth amendment.

It is the Supreme Court, particularly when they started claiming the Interstate Commerce clause applies to anything done anywhere, that has allowed Congress to spend like drunken sailors.

My suggestion: give money to folks like the Cato Institute that will shine a bright light on the most egregious cases. However, if the economy does not grow faster than the politicians spend our grandchildren will be poorer than our children and our children poorer than us.

I would like to revise and extend my remarks. :-)

There is one lesser known government program that has exposed this issue perfectly.

It is called the Section 811 program. It provides funding to build housing for poor disabled people and subsidizes their rents. I believe it was created during the Bush Sr. administration.

W put zero dollars in the 2006 budget--he wanted to eliminate the program.

Both the Republican House and Senate have put all the money back into the budget, thumbing their noses at the White House.

Why?

Because they are evil people who love spending?

No.

The answer lies in the socialist's brilliant design of this program.

Funds are allocated by state, and each Congresscritter gets to announce these grants in their local area.

The beneficiaries are construction contractors, subcontractors, architects, lawyers, surveyors, etc.

However, the biggest beneficiaries often are very wealthy people who have disabled offspring.

Often these disabled young adults have to live with their parents because they have minimal income. They are difficult to control and (whether the parents will admit it or not) significantly reduce the quality of life in the family household.

Wealthy parents of disabled young adults have formed powerful lobbying groups and they contribute heavily to both parties.

They represent a very small part of an area's population but on this one issue they are determined, mobilized, active and won't accept "no" for an answer. Many know their Congressman or Senator personally from years of lobbying on this issue. They can (and have in the past) sent disabled people in wheelchairs to testify before Congress how this program made their lives worthwhile, etc.

The parents, meanwhile, have a great deal and they have no intention of letting taxpayers off the hook.

Multiply this one program ten thousand times and you can see why domestic spending will not be controlled by either party.

As for spending and pork, that's not going to change any time soon. There are two options to change it, two that I see might work. Enough people, screaming loud enough and long enough right on the doorsteps of their offices in DC...however long it takes, or change the tax code: either set it up so that all pay taxes and have to pay them each month, not taken out of their checks so they never see it, or eliminate it at the fed level totally, have the feds tax each state, and the taxpayers pay to the state. If senators were 'elected' as they were originally, by the state house and senate, and the state was taxed by the Feds, bet you'd see some changes as to how money got spent! They'd all be fighting to keep taxes low.