Sections
Poll: Current Poll
Is it time for Christians to redirect their efforts from politics mainly to the greater power inherent in the Kingdom of God?
Login
Did you enjoy this article?
(total 14 votes)
SPENDING AS IF THERE WERE NO TOMORROW
on March 17, 2008 11:35:00 | 1671 times read
Adjust font size:
By Cal Thomas
Tribune Media Services
We've all seen or heard about them. Perhaps they are friends or family
members who have demonstrated financial irresponsibility: a college
student who has a budget and quickly exceeds it on wild partying; a
cousin or best friend who asks for a "loan" and then never pays it back;
people whose credit cards are maxed out and they can't afford the
finance charges.
Government behaves similarly, playing any or all of those roles. It now
resembles an irresponsible parent, spending the children's wages and
inheritance as if there were no tomorrow. Republicans lost the spending
issue - and their congressional majority - because they behaved like
overspending Democrats. Now Democrats in the House are going the
Republicans one better. They are promising to increase spending should
they win the White House and maintain their congressional majority.
According to an analysis of the fiscal 2009 House Democratic majority's
federal budget by Brian Riedl of The Heritage Foundation,
(www.heritage.org), every American household would pay an average $3,100
more in federal taxes. That amounts to $1.265 trillion more over five
years and $3.911 trillion over 10 years. Worse (if that's possible) the
Democratic budget proposal increases discretionary spending by 8 percent
and does not eliminate even one wasteful program. It also ignores the
coming explosion in the cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
None of these increases will be paid for by "soaking the rich" with new
tax increases. That means more borrowing from countries that don't have
America's best interests as a priority, more inflation and a weaker
dollar.
The spending virus has so permeated Congress that members won't even go
on the wagon during an election year. The bipartisan DeMint-McCaskill
budget amendment that would have required a one-year moratorium on
earmarks was soundly defeated 71-29. This is how little respect most
members have for those whose money they take through taxation, spending
it like frat boys on a weekend bender.
The Washington Examiner newspaper determined that the longer someone
serves in the Senate, the more likely they are to favor spending more
money and to oppose any suggestion that they stop. According to the
Examiner, "the average seniority of senators voting for DeMint-McCaskill
was 12 years, while opponents averaged 22 years in the Senate." All
three presidential candidates returned from the campaign trail to vote
for the measure. Sen. John McCain is far more credible on spending
reductions than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and the moratorium was
about slashing earmarks, not the big ticket items most in need of
reform, but getting any politician on record favoring spending
reductions (and then following through to see if they mean it) is worth
something.
This year, according to Heritage, the federal government will spend
$25,117 per household.
The excuse one hears most often is that there is no place legislators
can cut spending.
Really?
Last year, says the Heritage Foundation, the government made at least
$55 billion in overpayments; the Pentagon spent almost $1 million
shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451
sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida. Even the
coming postal rate increases aren't that high.
Washington spends $60 billion per year on corporate welfare compared to
$50 billion on homeland security. Suburban families are receiving large
farm subsidies for the grass in their back yards, subsidies that many of
these families never requested and do not want. Over half of all farm
subsidies go to corporate farms with average household incomes of
$200,000.
And then there is my personal favorite: government auditors spent the
last five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent
of them - costing taxpayers $123 billion per year - fail to show any
positive impact on the populations they serve.
This is outrageous. That our elected officials participate in this sham
and then claim they can't afford to cut anything ought to disgust us
all, especially when some are planning to spend even more. It
demonstrates that a government program is proof of eternal life in
Washington.
(Direct all MAIL for Cal Thomas to: Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore
Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas
at tmseditors@tribune.com.
(c) 2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
Comments (0 posted)
Columns
