“Enough is enough.” We say that when we’ve had too much.
When do we reach enough government spending?
One way to figure this out would be to determine what is the real public interest and spend enough to cover that, and no more.
Take defense. A good diplomatic policy, backed by adequate military might, serves us all. We can argue what that good policy is, but we certainly don’t want more spending than required to serve said policy.
And yet, a much-ballyhooed current defense spending measure is laden with line-item spending projects that the Pentagon didn’t ask for.
President Obama, when he was a candidate, promised to crack down on such spending. It’s usually called “pork.” Unfortunately, politicians like pork.
A fascinating post on the USA Today website explains how our prez signed “a pork-laden spending bill left over from the previous year but vowed to be more vigilant going forward. Now, his administration is lauding a $636 billion defense spending bill, for the fiscal year that began Thursday, that includes $2.7 billion in earmarks” — including funding for destroyers and cargo planes the Pentagon didn’t ask for.
Such spending doesn’t serve us all. It serves a few, back home in some districts. And it helps re-elect their representatives.
All at our expense.
By definition, it’s more than enough. It’s too much.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
2 replies on “Way More than Enough”
This is not a great example. $2.7B out of $636B is peanuts (half a percent). If only that were all that was being wasted! Who says the Pentagon should get all it asks for? How much safer are we with $636B than we would be with $318B? Does it really cost $2,000 per person per year to protect ourselves from foreign attacks?
First, the $2.7B porked out of the Defense Spending bill was just “peanuts,” but: 1) it diverts money from *needed* defense expenditures (my son served in Iraq and is currently in Afghanistan, so…); and 2) this is the tip of the iceberg, and that’s a big pile of “peanuts.” (Sorry for mixed metaphor, but I think you get my drift.)
On a state by state level, I resent the idea of the more liberal, free-spending states, eg, CA, being bailed out by states that have shown more fiscal responsibility. Would the last evil rich person, ie, someone who pays the vast majority of taxes to support wasteful spending, to leave California please turn out the light, assuming there is any light left to turn out. Perhaps the illegal immigrants can make it all work. Or move to YOUR state.
GM caved to the unions a while back, then moved some of their factories to Mexico to escape their overpaid, low-skill line laborers. In the 80s, I read an article about how the jobs were so boring that “schmoozing” (impromptu breaks to shoot the breeze) was being considered to break the monotony of such jobs.
Now GM is basically union owned and operated. Michigan must surely be in great shape with such “leadership.” Well, perhaps not.
Gosh, if all businesses were captives of union demands, we’d all be doing as well as Michigan, huh?
Sadly, the White House seems to be a retirement home for ex-terrorists, communists, tax cheats, anti-American “activists/organizers” (whatever that means), and a pedophile in a pear tree.
I would encourage everyone to google on Obama’s czars (no quotes required: by the time you type in Obama’s, a drop down list has Obama’s czars listed, so you can click on it). I just did this again to see if this had been changed…and it has: Glenn Beck’s comprehensive list (if dated: posted in August, Van Jones is still on the list) is right up at the top where it belongs. Read ’em and weep, as the saying goes.
Beck’s list will tell you about their pasts, their salaries (some are missing, but those listed are around $150k-197k, roughly), what cabinet office could/should be doing the czars’ jobs, and a bit about what they’re up to now.
(My wife asked me about these czars, so I ran it up and printed it out. 17 pages, unless you change the margins to 1″ on the left/right, and I think you’ll be able to get it in 16. If you wanna save on ink, you can just read it online, but then you can’t share it…and it would be a shame not to pass it along.)
Learn the name Valerie Jarrett, who passed on replacing Obama in the Illinois senate to become his co-conspirator in the White House. This woman is powerful and dangerous. (And, of course, rich.) Like Tony Rezco, she was a slumlord. One of Valerie’s “projects” was allowed to deteriorate to the extent that it was 99% empty. What a great place to bulldoze and put an Olympic Village…and make Valerie even richer. Too bad about Rio getting the nod.
We have the best government that money can buy. Of course, money doesn’t go as far as it used to.