Stop Spending My Kids' and Grandkids' Money
People are wrong to say that Congress is spending money like a drunken sailor. Drunken sailors spend everything they have in their pockets. Congress, on the other hand, is intent on spending everything we have in our pockets and then moving on to everything our kids and grandkids might someday have in theirs.
Likewise, comparisons between Congress's fiscal restraint and Santa Claus are misplaced. First, no one would waste breath suggesting that Congress's fiscal restraint is real. Second, Santa operates under a budget.
The federal government was right to quickly provide emergency relief for the Gulf Coast to pay for things like food and shelter. And additional relief is in order to rebuild critical infrastructure (relief, with tight restrictions and close oversight). But, mercy, how about looking for some offsets elsewhere in the budget to fund this? We have a choice: either we fund it now with offsets or we pass the buck to future generations.
Every time, our federal government's choice is to pass the buck. Why? Because it's easier than telling interest groups "no."
Not counting spending for Iraq, the federal budget has grown 37% in the last 5 years. With the national debt adding up not in millions or billions, but in TRILLIONS, no one could make a serious argument that we aren't mortgaging our Nation's future. It is irresponsible, and it needs to stop.
I am encouraged that people are questioning particular federal expenditures. But, there is a broader issue. Along with questioning pork-barrel expenditures, why not go further and question the existence of certain federal agencies that attract the pork? Do they perform essential services that the private sector or state and local governments could not provide?
For example, scrutiny (by the people, not by Congress) is being applied to the highway bill. Good. Maybe increased scrutiny of particular expenditures will reduce some pork out of this year's highway bill; but what about next year's bill or 5 years from now? Highway bills always have high fat-content.
So, shouldn't we question the need for the fat-attracting agency? With a built-out national highway system, what does the existence of the Federal Highway Administration bring us (other than patronage opportunities for Congress) that the private sector, states and local governments couldn't provide? Cut the agency, cut the fat that flows through the agency, cut the mandates and cut the associated tax burden. We'd be better off.
UPDATE (later): The always-dazzling Sen. Joe Biden asks, "Where is he going to find roughly half a trillion dollars over the next several years for Iraq and for Katrina? I think we're not leveling with the American people."
Three points, Joe. First, thanks for admitting Congress does not level with the American people; we knew it, but it's still nice to hear it. Second, can the "he" stuff; re-read the Constitution and step up to the plate; Congress is in charge of spending. Third, you'll find the money where you always do; in our kids' and grandkids' future.
Likewise, comparisons between Congress's fiscal restraint and Santa Claus are misplaced. First, no one would waste breath suggesting that Congress's fiscal restraint is real. Second, Santa operates under a budget.
The federal government was right to quickly provide emergency relief for the Gulf Coast to pay for things like food and shelter. And additional relief is in order to rebuild critical infrastructure (relief, with tight restrictions and close oversight). But, mercy, how about looking for some offsets elsewhere in the budget to fund this? We have a choice: either we fund it now with offsets or we pass the buck to future generations.
Every time, our federal government's choice is to pass the buck. Why? Because it's easier than telling interest groups "no."
Not counting spending for Iraq, the federal budget has grown 37% in the last 5 years. With the national debt adding up not in millions or billions, but in TRILLIONS, no one could make a serious argument that we aren't mortgaging our Nation's future. It is irresponsible, and it needs to stop.
I am encouraged that people are questioning particular federal expenditures. But, there is a broader issue. Along with questioning pork-barrel expenditures, why not go further and question the existence of certain federal agencies that attract the pork? Do they perform essential services that the private sector or state and local governments could not provide?
For example, scrutiny (by the people, not by Congress) is being applied to the highway bill. Good. Maybe increased scrutiny of particular expenditures will reduce some pork out of this year's highway bill; but what about next year's bill or 5 years from now? Highway bills always have high fat-content.
So, shouldn't we question the need for the fat-attracting agency? With a built-out national highway system, what does the existence of the Federal Highway Administration bring us (other than patronage opportunities for Congress) that the private sector, states and local governments couldn't provide? Cut the agency, cut the fat that flows through the agency, cut the mandates and cut the associated tax burden. We'd be better off.
UPDATE (later): The always-dazzling Sen. Joe Biden asks, "Where is he going to find roughly half a trillion dollars over the next several years for Iraq and for Katrina? I think we're not leveling with the American people."
Three points, Joe. First, thanks for admitting Congress does not level with the American people; we knew it, but it's still nice to hear it. Second, can the "he" stuff; re-read the Constitution and step up to the plate; Congress is in charge of spending. Third, you'll find the money where you always do; in our kids' and grandkids' future.
posted by steve u. at 9/19/2005
Subscribe
12 Comments:
Had our illustrious president contained his lies and not decided to mislead America into war, there would be a heck of a lot less concern about where all this money was gonna come from. The Downing Street minutes is one of many pieces of evidence of deceit. Now, with a real catastrophe on our hands (since Iraq is a false war) suddenly the master of the economy looks like a fool.
All those who said his policies are improving the economy suddenly are smacked in the face. A reduction in the deficit from 394 billion to 320 billion is great, but a deficit none-the less. This administration has turned out to be the one of the worst, second possibly to Herbert Hoover!
Steve, this is my favorite post yet. What will it take to get congress under control? It didn't happen when the democrats were in the majority and it hasn't happened while the republicans have been. It's gotten so that I can't listen to either side without disgust.
Besides a vote for you, what can I do to help make a change?
P.S. I especially like how you can make your points without ridicule and disrepect in your words or the use of endless exclamation marks.
doc, i frequent Steve's blog and i applaud what he is doing. i can't speak for Steve, but i think you seem to post quite a bit on this site and don't really say much. The tone you strike in almost every post is not unlike a flamer. You and I agree that what Steve is doing on this blog is nothing short of historic. Steve is attempting to lend an ear to his constituents, but i'm sure he is busy and i'm sure he does not need you to comment on every post. Please respect what is happening here - if you would like to comment, please pace yourself; if you are just lonely, try match.com
Thanks for the advice JR, I am quite lonely, and when the loneliness gets too uncomfortable, I search out my most comforting hobby and play. Its called politics. I frequest the conyers Blog most often, and sometimes bradblog, Michael moore blog, Raw story, Huffington post, The Smirking Chimp, Buzzflash, and yes, even this one. Lots of worthy news actually makes it to the people. I found this site quite by accident...just trying to see how many politicians actually offer an ear and a voice to their constituents. I praised Mr. U many months ago on his willingness to put himself out there.
I also read the posts to see where the other side of the country is coming from. I often like what I see, particularly when it comes to ideas to help local issues. HOWEVER, as a new Yorker, I find that some of the topics don't resonate well with the general concensus of what is OK in NY. I expect this, but when Mr. U's posts come into the realm of federal issues, particularly ones that affect me and my peers, then I will say so. I will often argue vigorously when I see hypocrisy or naivete...or giving a pass to someone when a good dose of "stand-up and scream NO" is necessary.
The current topic of wasteful spending and where the money will come from is powerful for me because I have a 7 y.o. son. I agree wholeheartedly that he will likely have to suffer under the circumstances that this administration caused. They will take a significant portion ofhis money, moreso than they should, in order to pay for this bizarre deficit. I do agree with Mr. U on this. However, what isnt being said strong enough is the negatives about how we got here. Think about the LIVES and the money lost in a false war in Iraq. Think about the money unaccounted for in Iraq (nearly 10 Billion). Thik about Halliburton, who is responsible for the "misplacement", yet continues to get immense no bid contracts from Bushco. I can go on forever. My post here was just a piece of the misery I feel when I look at what this administration is doing to us and my child.
I appreciate your concern for my health and well-being. I will take match.com into consideration. As for your worry about whether I bother Mr. U, I think he knows that in the world of politics, I am simply a lightweight. He'll have many more difficult people to deal with than I. However, I will offer a deal Mr. U. If you want me gone, just say the word and and I will remove this site from my list of favorites.
All I seek is debate on topics..some of which I understand, and some of which I am rather muddy on. With help, I'm sure I'll have a greater understanding!!
Alan
Steve,
Thank you for this blog. I am a college student in a Business Law class and have gained great insight from the discussion here. Shoot, it's even helping me form my own opinions. I know very little about the law, but I feel empowered by what I have learned here and in class. Thank you!
Glory be! A serious candidate for Congress that thinks, as do I (see here) that we need some fiscal restraint. Please don't lose sight of this sentiment once you get there.
bro, all i'm saying is you talk alot.
i am also a new yorker and not a republican, but i do have an interest in technology so i come here all the time; this is not a message board and this isn't 'docs blog' - insightful commentary is awesome(i agree with most of what you say) but dude imho you're stealing Steve's thunder. Again, all this little piggy is asking is that you pace yourself; at least try waiting a day to post.
Apologies for the match.com remark, that was rude.
No problem!! Sometimes I get wordy, and sometimes I just get upset when I feel that numerous "points" are missed. My offer stands...If Mr. U wants me off, I go!
Thanks for being honest and direct. No offense taken!
Alan
Doc: Have you posted on Hatch's blog?
Yesterday's article in the opinion journal of the WSJ (from the link you posted) explains the issue very well from my view's standpoint. Here is an exerpt:
"Their check-writing binge in response to the hurricane only confirmed, as conservative leader Paul Weyrich put it, that 'the GOP, once the party of small government, has lost its bearings and the Republican establishment doesn't seem to get the message that the grass roots of the party is enraged.'"
I was happy to see that Congressman Aiken among others were bold enough to suggest some offsets, but discouraged that the rest of them didn't have the guts. Taking more and more money from the common people is hardly "compassion" when congress could tell interest groups to cut back for a season.
Didn't know he had one!! Thanks!
So Doc, I'm curious to hear your reaction to Orrin's blog. I think it is a big deal that Steve can engage in honest debate and display for constituents how he thinks through issues. It is unique and in my mind a powerful harbinger of the future of politics. Recalling your earlier posts, even if you and I may disagree with Steve on some points, the fact that he will engage in a public forum is exciting, and raises the bar for what we could expect from our reps. In contrast, Orrin's blog is, well, I'm curious to hear your reaction.
<< Home