We hear people in government running around like Chicken Little yelling “the sky is falling,” over this sequestration. They’re claiming that the government is going to have to lay off thousands of people. Let’s see if I have this right, Congress is borrowing or printing 1.5 trillion this year to balance the budget and they cut 85 billion dollars of it? Then there is Ben Bernanke buying 85 billion dollars a month of real estate equity using “creative bookkeeping.”
Obama said again today, “The rich must pay their fair share.” I think they already do. The rich aren’t building businesses in the USA, they have moved overseas to increase their profit margin and reduce their labor costs. This country wasn’t built by stupid people but it kind of looks like its run by stupid people.
Every government agency has a budget, and at the end of the year, if they don’t spend it, they have to turn it back in to the government. Have you ever heard of any part of the government returning money because they didn’t have anything to spend it on? What would happen if instead of each department trying to spend the money, the person in charge got 20 percent of the budget not spent, as a year-end bonus split with the people under him?
When you examine government, it is not designed to cut costs, where is the incentive? They won’t go bankrupt. It’s not like they have to make a profit. Plus there is no accountability to the taxpayers.
My question: If 85 billion in cuts is going to upset the apple cart, then why are we spending 1.5 trillion more than we take in in taxes? What makes the 85 billion in cuts painful, but the 1.5 trillion in extra spending that is borrowed money, painless? Of course, if Congress doesn’t plan to pay back any of the 16 trillion dollars; I can see where the 85 billion is a real setback to their spending programs. They went to the trouble to print it and now they’re told they can’t spend it.
When funding is cut to a government agency, you get the negative get-even feedback "How dare Congress cut our budget, we will cut services that will maximize taxpayer discomfort." There is no Gung-ho push of a "Can Do" attitude, we end up getting, it's "My way or the highway." Common sense suggests if Congress cuts the funding, the government should cut the bureaucratic enforcement that goes with it, it's called downsizing. However, if a government agency wants to impress how important their part of the bureaucracy is, they don't downsize, they enforce the regulations more vigorously with less man power. The kids on the free lunch program can throw away their 35 cent apple every day while you wait in longer lines to check on to your flight---they win if you get upset, go figure!