Skip to comments.Gullible Nation
Posted on 03/01/2013 6:20:44 AM PST by Kaslin
Responding to the Obama administration's operatic warnings of catastrophe for Meals on Wheels for the elderly, Head Start, meat inspections, air traffic controllers, and police, fire, and 911 operators if the government reduces the rate of increase of federal spending by 2 percent, radio host Chris Plante offered the following suggestion: "Since this two percent obviously covers all essential government spending, let's cut the other 98 percent!"
Even if these "draconian cuts" are implemented, the federal government will spend more this year than it did last year.
Another way to think about it is this: In 2007, the government was 40 percent smaller than it is today. Were poor people sleeping under bridges? Were the elderly starving? Were planes grounded? Was food unsafe to eat?
Here's another question: Are Americans really this gullible? The president's doom saying is so absurd that a mature country would hoot him off the stage. As it is, the housebroken media credulously report his obviously partisan scare mongering as fact.
As the sequester has loomed, the president and even many Republicans have argued that these "across the board" spending cuts (they're actually just reductions in the rate of increase) are "stupid" and "destructive" and so forth. This raises (it doesn't beg) the question: if cutting spending across the board is so stupid, what does that say about the priorities of the congress and president who passed these spending bills in the first place? If our spending priorities are so out of whack that cutting everything equally is unthinkable, why hasn't the government adjusted those programs before now?
Isn't it the job of elected representatives to pass laws, oversee their execution and adjust accordingly? There is a rumor that the U.S. has two Houses of Congress, but the Senate hasn't been heard from in years. While the Republican House has passed budgets that would slowly reduce the levels of federal debt over 10 years, the Democratically-controlled Senate has played see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, but alas not speak-no-evil. In any case, that body has not passed a budget in nearly four years.
Democrats like to pretend that every last penny of government spending is wise, benevolent and essential. My guess is that perhaps 15 percent of discretionary spending meets all three of those criteria, but we'll never know because government programs are rarely evaluated for effectiveness, efficiency or necessity. According to the Government Accountability Office, the government runs 50 different programs for the homeless across eight agencies, 23 programs for housing aid in four agencies, 26 programs for food and nutrition aid among six agencies, 27 programs on teen pregnancy, 130 programs for at-risk youth, 10 agencies to promote exports and 342 programs for economic development. The federal government runs 47 different job-training programs at a cost to the taxpayer of $18 billion annually. The GAO found that "Only 5 of the 47 programs ... examined had done detailed impact studies" and that among those "the effects of participation were not consistent across programs, with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small, inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts."
Entitlements eat up two-thirds of federal spending and are excluded from sequestration, which is too bad because an estimated $20 billion is wasted on Medicare fraud every year. As for Medicaid, a New York Times investigation found that between 10 and 40 percent of New York's spending was lost to fraud and theft yearly. Other estimates suggest that 33 percent of Earned Income Tax Credits (about $9 billion annually) are erroneous or fraudulent.
Sure, the government performs some necessary functions, but it is also vulnerable to abuse because nobody is watching. Consider the example of Al Gore. Upon leaving the vice presidency, Mr. Gore's net worth was estimated at $2 million. But with the advent of Mr. Obama's "investments" in green energy, Mr. Gore has profited handsomely. His company, General Investment Management, invested in a number of companies that received "green" subsidies. Gore's net worth (before the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera) was estimated by the Washington Post to be $100 million. The Obama economy has been awful for average Americans but exceedingly profitable for the well connected.
Some government spending is necessary, much is sinfully wasteful, and the remainder is corrupt. If Americans have stopped believing that then a key aspect of the American character is dead.
I just sent this in response to an alarmist e-mail from Pelosis office:
YOU and Obama are responsible for the destructive choices as to which programs are funded and which are not.
Collectively, you have ensured the cuts will cause the most pain to the most Americans.
You could have closed the EPA and the IRS and nobody would have cared.
It is a travesty that the Federal government is at all involved in funding ANY local daycare, firefighters, or city and state law enforcement.
There is NO Constitutional authority for ANY of this.
Obama and your buddy Harry need to get off of their dead butts, and CUT SPENDING in your laundry list of vote buying programs.
Leave Air Safety alone and close the EPA.
While your at it, close the TSA and return that function to the private sector, who performs better at one tenth the cost.
Quit pretending there is any willingness on the part of the Senate or the White House to negotiate anything.
That dictator in the White House has flatly REFUSED to discuss any spending cuts, while DEMANDING tax increases on the middle class.
Yes, he says he only wants to tax the rich, but we both know that wont come near to funding the level of socialism you folks have in mind.
Theres no point in explaining to you the need to reform the entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, because youre quite happy raiding those accounts as long as they remain part of the general fund.
Why do you pretend to suggest a balanced plan, when the truth is, you have no such intention?
When 'cuts' are on the table officials talk about having to cut police and fire protection. Government blowhards don't talk about cutting trips to Hawaii for the Water Department or training programs for the Mayors staff in Las Vegas...
We've elected a bunch of lowlifes...
I rather have freedom
The rot and waste and corruption is deep and systemic.
Love Chris Plante!
The total truth is that, for decades Liberals have deliberately walked America up to this abyss! And NOW, having enjoyed the blind and dumb compliance of ALL Liberal voters for so long, Liberal leadership suggests that we continue the practice of irresponsible and idiotic spending because we CAN!
They have systematically defrauded American workers and maliciously castigate us with every conceivable slur, for objecting to continuation on this road to doom and destruction.
Every single Liberal who refuses to accept accountability for this is as much a misfit loser as any deranged user who proudly recalls the pharmaceutical binge that got him INTO slam!!
Even if these "draconian cuts" are implemented, the federal government will spend more this year than it did last year.
Considering the above facts here is something to consider.
If in the past six years the federal government has grown 40% if we cant even slow the growth of government by this miniscule <2% can we expect the government to grow by 40% or more in the next 6 years?
If the government grows by 40% in the next 6 years what will be left of/for the private sector? How will the private sector be able to pay for the huge and bloated government?
Beautiful line! I'll have to try it out on some of the libs I can't help but be around...
“the housebroken media credulously report his obviously partisan scare mongering as fact. “
The media makes it’s money from advertisers... who want people to think spending is a good thing and not spending is a bad thing.
The media is just looking out for itself here.
Gullible spenders are their product.
My post on other threads today appears below. If you have seen it, just ignore here.
"Ideas have consequences." - Weaver
The principles and ideas underlying America's Constitutional limits on grants of power to elected officials led to individual freedom, opportunity, creativity, wealth creation, and a refuge for oppressed persons from all over the world.
The "liberal" movement which began in the late 1800's, now self-described as the "progressive" movement has brought America's citizens and their economy to this point.
So-called "progressives," in their arrogant and overwhelming desire for accumulation of power for themselves, readily acknowledge the taxing power as a useful tool for restraining motivation toward what they deem to be undesirable behavior.
On the other hand, they deny the certain fact that "taking," or taxing productive citizens also discourages and restrains opportunity and motivation toward productivity, wealth creation, and saving.
Democrats, under Obama, now have endangered the liberty of millions yet unborn with their illogical arguments on behalf of "taking" and "redistributing" the earnings of hard-working Americans. They claim they are "taking care" of those who elected them. Their "taking care" amounts to enslaving every citizen, born and unborn, for generations to come.
Their claims would fall on deaf ears, if most citizens understood their Constitution's limits on the powers of government. Here what some of the Founders said about the policies of today's "progressive" Democrats.
"To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39
"I deem [this one of] the essential principles of our government and consequently [one] which ought to shape its administration:... The honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:322
"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816. ME 15:23
"[With the decline of society] begins, indeed, the bellum omnium in omnia [war of all against all], which some philosophers observing to be so general in this world, have mistaken it for the natural, instead of the abusive state of man. And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40
"Is it now high time for the people of this country to explicitly declare whether they will be free men or slaves. It is an important question which ought to be decided. It concerns more than anything in this life. The salvation of our souls is interested in this event. For wherever tyranny is established, immorality of every kind comes in like a torrent, it is in the interest of tyrants to reduce the people to ignorance and vice. - Samuel Adams
The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional. - Samuel Adams
Thanks for posting
Now that it looks like the "cuts" will really happen, the White Hut and its "media" will start to back-track as soon as it appears that, hey!, the country isn't breaking down. If polls show the people starting to support the "cuts", Zero will start talking out of the other side of his mouth and the "media" will follow suit.
We will then be at war with West Asia. What war with East Asia? We have always been at war with West Asia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.