Alan Simpson said that on Fox News last night. He's one of Obama's chairs of the Deficit Commission. It's short enough that one could actually read it, unlike the massive health care bill of over 2,000 pages. However, it's not terribly believable. If both parties have contibuted to the deficit, having a bipartisan (both parties) commission look at spending makes little sense. I think the American people should look at the spending so they aren't just moving money from the wallet to the pocket and calling it "savings," like shifting inefficient federal health costs to even worse state health costs.
I've only been a Republican for a decade, but since they seem to be the same party I registered with in the 1960s I see some problems. Republicans talk small government and fiscal responsibility, but once inside the beltway they become first RINOs, then progressives, then socialists, feeding at the public trough, schmoozing with the lobbiests, and playing games. Huey Long in the 1930s, an opponent of Roosevelt, wrote a pamphlet called Share Our Wealth, and his stealth theft of wealth is indistinguishable from today's government, regardless of which party is in power.
So I challenge you, liberal or conservative to find an agency, commission, program, department, task force, Congressional office, government GSE or think tank, and find a section of its budget and take it apart, piece by piece. Find the pork or the graft if it's coming to your city or state and you don't want it to die permanently, or decide why the entire thing is a scam if you can handle a really sharp knife. Or, you could do it by topic--like poverty, education, housing, health, or job training and dig out the waste as it resides in multiple departments like Education, Energy, Health.
Or, you could do it by non-profit status or by religion. How much are Lutherans or Methodists or Catholics or fair-housing groups and trade associations getting from government grants instead of their members, and are they then able to meet their original mission statement or do they have to be gradually silenced? Has Jesus' command in Matthew changed from "Therefore go, . . . because I said so" to "Therefore NO, . . . because the government says so."
Does the government need to still be offering zero percent down home mortgages? You can get one through the USDA. Did we learn nothing from the last three years? The USDA is right up there with HHS as the biggest spender of pork in government--it's in everything from day care to home mortgages. So citizens, let's call this pulled pork and see what we find, then pass it along to your Congressional representative.
------------------
Update: Here's one from the Department of Energy someone could look at. The DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) was created in 1976 to assist low-income families who lacked resources to invest in energy efficiency. You would think that after 35 years, most low income homes would be insulated or have window replacements, but apparently not because $5 billion of ARRA money was dumped in their lap after an annual allocation of around $225 million. Imagine the frantic hiring and and equipment buying and ordering supplies hastily that must have put in motion! Although I didn’t find the cost, one of the grants was for a webinar for a nonprofit (NASCSP) to teach its members how to use social media and blogging to sign people up to use this money. And to think I started 12 blogs with no government or any start up costs.
Update 2: Rusty suggests: Well, that'll be easy as the Dept of Energy was the first I was going to eliminate all together. It has done nothing over the last 30? years. Next I would eliminate all agricultural subsidies. How much sense does it make to pay for a farmer NOT to plant something. Or pay them to plant corn for ethanol. Without a subsidy, fuel WITH ethanol would cost more than gas without. Then federal lands, that are leased to cattle operations in the West, need to be rented at rates that reflect prices for comparable non-federal lands. And after that, the Department of Education.
Update 3: Bill says: In the UK they froze senior benefits and the military budget and then went to the other government organizations with a % they must cut. The per cents are not small, like 20 and 25%. If the department head balks or says it can't be done, the department head gets eliminated. Then Carol adds, she thinks Social Security and the military are untouchables.
Update 4:Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe: "Other 10-year Cato spending cut estimates: Scrapping the departments of Commerce and Housing and Urban Development saves $550 billion; ending farm subsidies would produce nearly $290 billion. Cutting NASA spending by 50% would save $90 billion. Repealing Davis-Bacon labor rules produces $60 billion. Ending urban mass transit grants would save $52 billion. Privatizing air traffic control, as other nations have done, saves $38 billion. Privatize Amtrak and end rail subsidies and save $31 billion. Reform federal worker retirement, $18 billion. Retire Americorps, $10 billion. Shutter the Small Business Administration, $14 billion."Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe: What Congress Should Cut - WSJ.com
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment