On Monday, we spoke about big government excess, speculation, and moral hazard, among other things.
Care to see the numbers associated with these concepts? Give these a look-see:
The table is from this article: A New Spending Record
It’s our view that these clearly destructive and unsustainable numbers are in large measure due to government speculation dripping with moral hazard:
- Speculation that massive increases in food stamps will eradicate poverty.
- Speculation that huge increases in unemployment insurance will increase employment.
- Speculation that mortgage rules that encourage the unqualified to buy a home, and then when they fall off the cliff, that mortgage subsidies will somehow make them qualified.
- Speculation that car companies that are no longer viable can be made viable with government subsidies.
- Speculation that otherwise non-viable alternative energy approaches have only failed because the right people were not encouraging them with other peoples’ money.
- Speculation that federal money to pay for teachers, policemen, and firemen, historically locally funded, will not cause a crisis when the money runs out.
- Speculation that big money firms that have no chance of long term success will succeed if only the government subsidizes them.
- Speculation that capitalism is a failed system, and that collectivism, which has a dismal record, can suddenly become workable and sustainable, and generate more wealth.
- Speculation that pork distribution trumps responsible governing.
And these people say that cutting a measly few percent from these budget levels is virtually impossible, and would cause needless suffering?
The really sad thing is that the nearly billion dollar mistake that is Solyndra doesn’t even make round off error scale in figures this big.
Think about that: a billion dollar boondoggle that doesn’t even reach the level of ‘a drop in the bucket.’
BA, BVA. (can you guess what these stand for?)
No comments:
Post a Comment