TBD

TBD on Ning


In the past year numerous polls have shown that between about 73% of the country believes the federal government should cut back on spending.  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_bus... This certainly is more than a simple plurality and represents the feeling of about 3 out of 4 potential voters. The problem comes when the individual citizen sees this spending reduction affecting their particular government benefit.  I am the recipient of both Social Security and Medicare and would not like to see spending cuts in these area unless they improve the programs. But I have no objection to my tax dollar being spent efficiently on any program that I use being administered more efficiently.  

Although Obama got a majority of votes in the past election, I do not believe these voters honestly gave his administration the green light to waste money like it was as easy to replenish as sunshine. (At least it is in Florida where I make my home.) If we take for a probability the multitude of studies that have been done on government waste over the years, that figure is at least 20-33% % of all revenues and possibly higher on some programs.  In fact the public, including both parties, think the number is closer to 51% being waste.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/149543/Americans-Say-Federal-Gov-Wastes-...  

Just to name one example of waste in which I earned a pretty good living as a cost container, not waster, the retiring Director of Medicare, Donald Berwick, stated that 20-30% of the monies spent on this program are a total waste.  http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/238654.php Yet anyone who threatens to cut back on this benefit are depicted as pushing grandma over the cliff.  Even though I use Medicare as my primary insurance plan, I have no problems with waste management measures that cut cost and not service.  As a matter of fact, cutting cost often leads to improved quality as much illness has been proven to be iatrogenic (caused by ineffective or improper medicine).  Ask Michael Jackson who had unlimited funds to spend on medicine. 

I also don't think reasonable taxpayers have a problems with cuts in other areas.  As I mentioned in a prior blog, Mike George, a management efficiency expert, has an organization that pledges to cut the federal spending by $500 billion a year and not disturb one singe function. http://www.humanevents.com/2011/06/29/mike-george-wants-to-save-you...

So why isn't Congress holding hearing on ways to cut our debt without compromising federal programs?  Or are we just going into a battle of ideologies as we tackle the debt ceiling in about a month from now.  Is the American government adopting jihadist principles? 

I has been my observation that many politicians allow waste and misspend the taxpayer's dollar. The recent "fiscal cliff" bill had more spending in it than tax revenues.  What a joke!  IMHO, we need adults in the room to negotiate ways of cutting back our out of control spending.  This should not be a political thing. 

Views: 43

Comment

You need to be a member of TBD to add comments!

Join TBD

Comment by exedir on January 13, 2013 at 8:44am

Spending government money is a political thing, it is what gets votes and keeps a politician in power, and yes, it has to be constantly fed.

Regards of whether we mint a $trillion coin or not, debt is a part of the economy, a necessary part of a growing economy which has both private and governmental components.  The question is what are we spending other people's money on, and to what result?  Waste is someone else's income, an income that would sorely be missed if not wasted, so to speak.  

In our economy if there is a profit to be made, then the investment is worth it, but not all the time.  What is profitable may not be necessary, what is wanted is not necessarily needed, and in the end what is the nature of the wealth created, by whom and to whose advantage?  

We have 'good' investing and 'bad' investing of which a government can do both, and does.   But usually that isn't what is being dealt with since a government usually does what serves a political purpose, not an economic purpose no matter what they say as to being from the government and here to help you.

Comment by Mandy Muffin on January 8, 2013 at 9:47am

Dictionary definition of jihad:

1. Islamic campaign against nonbelievers: a campaign waged by Muslims in defense of the Islamic faith against people, organizations, or countries regarded as hostile to Islam
2. relentless campaign: a relentless campaign against somebody or something
Tresaurus synonymy:
Definition: campaign for cause
Synonyms: cause, demonstration, drive, evangelism, expedition, holy war, jihad , march, movement, push
A political determination to not bend to  the need to cut expenses is in my opinion a jihadist-like behavior especially when that behavior can result in the ultimate destruction of the economic base of America.  I don't think the dictionary disagrees with me.  We create super committees and then make the consequences of not reaching an agreement so unpalatable that reasonable people would compromise.  There are zealots on both sides who would take the ship down before they would seek a solution that violates their principles. To me, signing a pledge to do anything is a jihad-like behavior. 
Although the root of the term is in Islamic culture, it has become widely acceptable to describe zealots of any cause. 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by Aggie.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service