Originally Posted by DaClyde
At some point, Congress has to reign in the unlimited, and almost entirely unrestricted, military and intelligence spending they've allowed over the past 10 years. None of the budget talks that led up to the raising of the debt limit made much noise over the enormous $$$ being thrown into that particular black hole, with very little accountability. As with all budget talks, the first things the politicians go after are the hot button items like heath care and education.
Not surprisingly, those are the exact same things that politicians immediately attack when talking about DoD speding cuts. The first thing they want to talk about cutting is funding for body armor, health care for service personnel and the G.I. bill. What about the hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at contractors that disappears, without a trace, with nearly zero return? Why is it Congress can't have a realistic discussion about budget without immediately resorting to hyperbole?
When it comes to actually balancing the budget, the first thing much of Congress wants to talk about, in the rare event of a "projected budget surplus", is HOW TO SPEND THE PROJECTED BUDGET SURPLUS. First of all, it's a "projected" number. It isn't real. It's like having maxed out your credit cards, but then blowing your income tax return on a new TV. That's the mentality that has to change in Washington. As far as I'm concerned any true budget surplus shouldn't even be given back to the taxpayers, it should be applied directly to the national debt.
Until candidates like Ron Paul stop being cast as "extreme" because they advocate a realistic approach to government and finance, as opposed to promoting more of the same and relentlessly attacking their opponents (notice the bulk of Paul's speeches are policy related, not constant attacks on political opponents), nothing will change. Also, the media and the public have to acknowledge that the President of the United States has no power to arbitrarily enact universal health care any more than he has the power to arbitrarily eliminate Social Security. Obama isn't solely responsible for the health care act that passed. That was Congress. Much like Bush wasn't solely responsible for the US being tied up in two wars over seas. There were better than 55% of the 535 members of Congress who were in some way complicit in both actions. It is those individuals who should be held responsible for what is placed in front of the President for his signature.
I think as long as the people who got us into the current mess are still allowed to keep their jobs, all the while ineptly fiddling with the economy, looking for some magic switch to turn it all around, we're not going to see any financial progress any time soon. At the very least, the first thing Congress should implement is no NEW spending programs. Deal with what is already on the table, and trim some of that first.
|
09-10-2011, 02:33 AM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode