Dr Ron Paul, a Congressman from Texas, gives us a civics lesson worth noting on this day:
"Everybody seems to agree that government waste is rampant and spending should but cut – but not when it comes to their communities or pet projects. So members of Congress have every incentive to support spending bills and adopt a go-along, get-along attitude. This leads to the famous compromises, but the bill eventually comes due on April 15th."
In making a case for "smaller government," we should be reminded that the size of the Federal government itself, in terms of full-time employees, has steadily dropped in the last forty years. (My own agency is down to roughly half the number of employees it had when I started 25 years ago.) But a job that is not done by a civil servant can also be done by a private contractor, and the same taxes that go to pay one can also pay for the other. If the latter doesn't always save money, at least it saves face. As long as the public wants Washington to do it, our elected leaders will do and/or say whatever the public demands -- or make it look that way.
You want less government? Don't ask for more. Of anything.
1 comment:
I have an idea. We decide how much money we want to cut from the federal budget. We take that dollar value, and we devide it by the number of citizens in the United States, then we take that number and multiply it by the number of citizens in each congressman's district and make that congressman responsible for cutting the pet projects in his district. He has a month to submit a list or projects that he's going to cut. If he does not cut the appropriate amount of money from those projects in that time, his list is given to the opposite party and *they* begin cutting.
Wouldn't take long to trim the budget that way, I'd imagine.
Post a Comment