Gimme gimme gimme

May 26th, 2017

No government program, once established, can ever be ended. No spending, no matter how wasteful or ineffective, can ever be cut.

Since welfare reform was enacted in 1996, annual spending on the nation’s anti-poverty programs has more than doubled. For the more than $1 trillion spent overall in 2016, we could have mailed a $20,000 check to every household with below-average income. Yet the Left’s appetite for more spending remains insatiable. A widespread belief holds that, since the Clinton-era reforms, the welfare state “ceased its expansion and began to retreat”; that a safety net “torn to shreds” is “thin and getting thinner.” Proposals in the new Trump administration budget to check the extraordinary and unsustainable growth of welfare spending are “Robin-Hood-in-reverse policies in an unprecedented scale,” the common theme of which is “really hurting the poor.”

…despite the claims from critics that Trump is waging class warfare on the poor, this budget, if fully implemented over two terms, would leave social safety-net spending by 2024 higher than under any president not named Obama.

How, then, are critics defining an acceptable level of anti-poverty spending versus one that is “cruel and short-sighted,” to quote House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi? The only guiding principle appears to be “More.”

Well, duh. How else are you gonna get more people dependent on government for their survival, and keep them voting Democrat Socialist?

The truly ironic thing is, despite Democrat Socialist handwringing and hysteria, absolutely nobody is really talking about eliminating the social safety net; just about everybody needs a little help sometimes, and sometimes the government is the only realistic option for that, although generally speaking private charities usually are more efficient and humane. But if you think the goal of Pelosi and her foul ilk is actually to help anybody, you’re dreaming. Their motivation is the same as it always is, each and every single time: power, and control.

Share
Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site, and may be deleted, edited, ridiculed, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. Thank you.
  1. SteveF
    May 27th, 2017 at 10:42 | #1

    absolutely nobody is really talking about eliminating the social safety net

    What, I'm absolutely nobody?

    In theory, a government safety net is a good idea. In practice, it is a terrible thing, subject to favoritism and large-scale fraud and ever-increasing bloat. It's better to kill it entirely, let people take care of their own problems or go to charities or, sadly, sometimes fail and die. The latter is bad, but the loss is less than the loss of having government programs.

    Arguments in favor of government charity are similar to arguments in favor of fiat money. They allow central monitoring and resource allocation according to needs rather than according to "artificial" constraints like the amount of mined gold or the balance sheet of the local metalworkers' union. Nice idea, but it never works. Fiat money always leads to government overspending and inflation, and government charity always leads to ever-increasing numbers of parasites -- on both sides of the desk.

  2. Friar Bob
    May 27th, 2017 at 12:18 | #2
    Nobody in public office, Steve. I'm not "nobody" either. I've said the same things.

    It also doesn't matter. (For now, at least.) No politician will ever say it, no politician will ever do it. And few (if any) people are still sane enough to admit we're right.

Comments are closed.
British Virgin Islands - Aquariums - Costa Rica - Renegade Motorhome