Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Smart Investment = Government Spending

Recently, Obama and his advisers have been tossing out the spin-phrase "smart investment." Meaning spending on programs they think are the most prudent. It has little to do with investment, all to do with just more spending, more debt, more pet projects.

How much of government spending is actually investment? Investment implies spending now with the anticipation of receiving that amount plus more at some point in the future.

Some spending could be considered investment, for example, infrastructure and education (although 50 years of government education programs have been the opposite of investment; is has been a money pit.)

Some spending is necessary for society to work like police, fire, air control, border/port security, and national defense.

But most spending done by the federal government is broken down into entitlements (healthcare and social security to name a few) and lots of discretionary spending. Both are the result of politicians deciding what is best -- how our money can best be used. It also has a great deal to do with political corruption -- how money spent benefits the individual politician.

Obama and his supporters will try to spin this "smart investment" as wisdom. Of course anyone that looks at it will realize it is just a pleasing way to tell us how he wants to spend more money that we do not have on programs we do not need. These spending programs will just be Keynesian economics relabeled.

Every aspect of our federal government's budget is too big, from defense and homeland security to health and housing, from commerce and labor to agriculture and interior programs.

Will we ever hear again a president say that "government is too big and that we must cut "x" amount out of it this year, "y" next year and "z" the year after?" We might hear "spending freeze," but that will just be some programs, not all. The freezes will not reduce the deficit but will just increase it at a slightly slower rate. We need our politicians to do the hard stuff, right-size our government and reduce taxation for all.

I would welcome the politician who campaigns on and fulfills a promise to not pass a single law but to remove thousands and to dis-abandon program after program. It'll never happen. And because it will never happen, our politicians will continue to spend us into destruction.

2 comments:

Cory Moon said...

I am sorry to inform you but you are wrong. You last 2 sentences are completly wrong. Their is a politician, ONE, who would like to disband so many programs and get rid of so many laws.
His name is Ron Paul.
And sorry about how the flip flopping politician has to be a Mormom. I feel kind of bad for you guys having to be associated with him.

Hayes said...

I like Ron Paul. Have read his books. Think he would be a great president. The unfortunate way we nominate and elect is broken. A personally like Paul does not get a fair shake. Same with Cain.