Every politician should read Charles Beard's classic
An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. In it, he specifies those areas where gov't is deemed responsible for spending. The areas narrow to two centers of spending: 1) policing of property rights (e.g., a legal system), and 2) social overhead capital (e.g., those things the private sector won't provide but are necessary for the Republic to survive (e.g., a standing military, bridges and roads, etc.). I would venture to say that the overwhelming percent of gov't spending takes place in other areas when the gov't has no legitimate reason for spending other than buying votes. Why, for example, if I live in the Midwest, is my tax money being used to restore private property due to Sandy in NJ? NJ has the highest property taxes in the country. Why isn't that money being used to clean the public buildings and roads up? If your house was swept away by the storm, why should my tax dollars fix it just because you didn't buy enough (or any) insurance? Are the owners of the beachfront property going to ask you or me to spend a week at their place this summer? I don't think so.
Some gov't programs are "fuzzy" in that they may or may not fall into one of the two real areas of gov't spending. But cells phones for poor people? Really? Other than getting reelected, how do programs like that make any sense?
Obozo bitches about tax breaks for the rich. Really? Who the hell does he think wrote the Tax Code. You and your cronies did and you did it to give them breaks so you could do them favors in return for election contributions.
It's time to clean house...both houses, both parties.
Why should the federal government be responsible for roads and bridges? Even if Fedzilla was somehow, someway kept small and lean, they’d still hold that over every state’s head, keeping billions from them.