Wednesday, October 19, 2011

We simply have no room to cut….

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?)

1 comment:

  1. There wouldn't be so much unemployment if there were fewer people who don't work.
    There wouldn't be so many poor if there were fewer people who don't have any money.
    There wouldn't be a health care problem if there were fewer sick people.
    There wouldn't be a drug problem if there were fewer people who took drugs.
    There wouldn't be any crime problem if there were fewer people who are criminals.
    There wouldn't be any war if there were fewer people who had guns.
    If you haven't noticed the common thread in all these problems is "fewer people". Most of these problems would go away if there were "fewer people yet we are now faced with a planet that needs to support 7 billion when in 1800 there were fewer than 1 billion. That my friends is what you call unsustainable.