This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |

« Nuclear Iran | Main | Milosevic Found Dead in Cell »
What's that, Porkbusters found $23 billion in questionable spending? That is less than 1% of a $2.7 trillion budget.
Cato Institute's Tax & Budget bulletin for February arrived via snail mail. It revealed where the $831.6 billion in new spending went under this President Bush -- a 50 percent spending hike in his first five years.
That, not the tax cuts, spurred the deficit spending.
In fact, if Bush actually budgetted the people's money instead of going on a spending spree, the budget would be balanced. Instead of a 50% increase in five years, a 25% increase (still well above inflation) would have meant $415.8 billion in new spending and a modest federal surplus of $44.8 billion instead of a projected deficit of $371 billion.
So play with the pork all you want. Until we begin holding the line on agency spending, people are just stroking their bacon.
I feel the same way. That is so easy to say, I know, but it is true. We at AtlasBlogged have carried a few articles about pork, and some of them were even referring to pork-barrel spending instead of the other white meat. But as easy as it is to get really worked about that $200 million "Bridge to Nowhere", it is hard to stay worked up about it once some overall budgetary perspective is gained. If they killed that bridge project, the real spending problem would still remain.
We are now over $20 billion per year on the War on Drugs (check this out). Government spending exceeds $20,000 per household. The Heritage Foundation lists billions and billions (and billions) on government waste. The amounts dwarf the pork that is being listed at PorkBusters.
The growth of government - especially by the self-styled party of smaller government - happens in large part because lawmakers can do it, and they think they will suffer at the polls if they do not do it. They think you want more government. If you have not told your representative otherwise, then you are the reason government is growing.
Don't just tell them you are angry. Tell them what made you angry on the Heritage Foundation and PorkBusters websites you see linked above. Target your own state pork - they "bring home the bacon" because they think you want it. They expand agencies because they perceive a demand for more government.
I never wanted to be dismissive of PorkBusters. I think what they are doing is great. And it is an issue where you can find common ground with people who do not share your ideological views. But when I saw the tiny, tiny dollar amounts they are flagging, I realized it was a project destined for trivia. Of course it adds up to a lot, and of course it is inappropriate, and of course it should be stopped. But as Surber's article notes, we have bigger fish to fry if we ever expect to see the government spending reined in.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.atlasblogged.com/cgi-bin/mt/mtb.cgi/244
Gov't employee unions are powerful, so there'll be no savings from layoff of the federal workforce, which is probably the most expensive outlay. And budget items automatically grow by a certain percentage each year, rather than being recalculated from zero. So I'm pessimistic.
Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at March 12, 2006 2:50 PM
yes... write to your congressman and tell them you are going to continue to vote Republican (the party of small government) if they don't quit it.
Wait a minute... Republicans control the Congress and the White House.... And there's an explosion in spending??? How can that be????
;)
Posted by: Libertarian Jason at March 13, 2006 5:07 PM
My representatives have always been under the impression that I am an active member of the community whose vote is up for grabs because [insert incumbant's party here] does not seem very committed to [insert choice libertarian ideal here].
Jason, do you tell your representatives that no matter what they do, you'll vote third party?
Posted by: Wulf
at March 13, 2006 5:24 PM
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)