Most modern welfare states have a huge problem: their politicians promise more than government revenue covers. So they borrow and borrow until they can borrow no more.
And then they go down. Like Greece has gone down. Banks are closed there, and the people suffer.
The problem is over-spending and over-promising (the latter being merely committing to future over-spending, so let’s just call it all over-spending). But when you confront a partisan of such extravagance — whether that person be a politician or a constituency beneficiary or an ideological socialist or social democrat — the most common defense is: THEY WOULDN’T LET US TAX ENOUGH.
The “they” in such defenses could be an opposition party, or a constituency, or . . . “the evil rich.”
But anyone with something other than a lump of coal for a brain knows the real truth: responsible people don’t make such defenses. If a political difficulty gets in the way of the extra revenue needed for something promised, it’s practically the same as an economic difficulty, so the excuse falls apart.
Say again?
If you cannot get enough revenue for your favorite program, it doesn’t matter whether the people who are the source of your “needed” revenue are broke — have nothing to give — or they simply balk at giving. The point is, you don’t have the revenue. The responsible reaction would be: cut back on spending.
Responsible people budget; irresponsible people blame others for not having the wherewithal to spend and spend and spend.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
5 replies on “The Spenders’ Eternal Excuse”
The politicians who use the excuses listed, regardless of which side of the aisle and for what program are not representitive of any voters. When they borrow they are dictators over those to are to come, and little more than common thieves. The fact they are stealing the wealth of future or even yet to be born “constituents” makes it all the worse.
Just as a future legislature cannot be bound by the present one, so the present legislature and executive should not be able to compel principal and interest payments in the future. That would shortly end deficient spending.
Stop picking on coal. It would have been more appropriate to say, “the product of a bowel movement for a brain.”
‘The responsible reaction would be: cut back on ending.
‘
All well and good, but WHAT budget item do we cut? My ‘wasteful spending’ is probably your ‘essential item’. The same people who complain about the defense budget would fight any attempt to close a military base or end a weapons program that provides jobs to their constituents.
One place to start: refuse to accept the notion that all future budgets must account for inflation. How many Americans have gone years without a raise? Many. Let the federal workforce live by the same rules or else shrink it to allow the remaining workers to get raises. Automatic increases in budget items must go the way of the dinosaur.
Firstly, Paul, that graphic is great! The artist is amazing.
So now, I’ll tell you where you can cut the budget… stop sending money to all the countries that hate us. We can start with Pakistan. Then we can lop off support to Mexico until they stop helping people cross our southern border. I could go on, picking off country by country that we give millions of dollars to, when we can’t afford it. If we’d cut these billions from the budget we’d have money for projects like infrastructure, health care, senior care, Veteran benefits, increased cyber & grid security, etc.
And lastly I do support a strong military.
Ooops just looked at the graphic again & realized it was from 1873! Wow! Even back then…