Spring Break
Earmarks, subsidies serve as drain on U.S. economy
Zen
Lazarus Austin
Issue date: 4/18/08 Section: Opinion
Lazarus Austin is a junior majoring in history. He can be contacted at opinion@reflector.msstate.edu.
Today, subsidies and earmarks are handed out like candy. The federal government spent nearly $20 billion on earmarks alone last year. If a problem arises, politicians like to throw money at it. When a benevolent idea gets proposed, why not fund it? Why not spend a little money here and there to support some useful project?
For example, what could possibly be wrong with a nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids or giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa the Medal of Honor? These are only two examples of pieces of legislation that have passed through Congress. Texas congressman Ron Paul, who has earned the nickname "Dr. No," has often been criticized for voting against such legislation as these. One may ask, What could somebody possibly have against the AMBER alert system?
To all those who liberally spend earmarks and sponsor subsidies, I ask, "Why not provide every child on Earth with three meals a day and clean water? Why not give all poor people enough money so they can live a comfortable middle class life? Why not pay for everybody's health care (oh yeah, they already want to do that)? What could they possibly have against these things?" The problem is money. We can't pay for every little project that we come across. For one, it is not the government's job.
For example, it cost the taxpayers $40,000 to mold a Medal of Honor. That's money down the drain. A nationwide AMBER alert system would require more money and so would every other benevolent project that comes up.
It is only one example of how fiscal liberals, Democrats and Republicans alike, flagrantly disregard the taxpayers. It is much easier to pay for something with somebody else's money.
The United States currently has almost $8 trillion in national debt. The reasons why are, in large part, fiscal mismanagement and overspending. Every time an industry is ailing, we pick them back up with subsidies. Companies no longer have to be responsible for their own actions. In our current state, we might as well call ourselves a socialist country.
Today, subsidies and earmarks are handed out like candy. The federal government spent nearly $20 billion on earmarks alone last year. If a problem arises, politicians like to throw money at it. When a benevolent idea gets proposed, why not fund it? Why not spend a little money here and there to support some useful project?
For example, what could possibly be wrong with a nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids or giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa the Medal of Honor? These are only two examples of pieces of legislation that have passed through Congress. Texas congressman Ron Paul, who has earned the nickname "Dr. No," has often been criticized for voting against such legislation as these. One may ask, What could somebody possibly have against the AMBER alert system?
To all those who liberally spend earmarks and sponsor subsidies, I ask, "Why not provide every child on Earth with three meals a day and clean water? Why not give all poor people enough money so they can live a comfortable middle class life? Why not pay for everybody's health care (oh yeah, they already want to do that)? What could they possibly have against these things?" The problem is money. We can't pay for every little project that we come across. For one, it is not the government's job.
For example, it cost the taxpayers $40,000 to mold a Medal of Honor. That's money down the drain. A nationwide AMBER alert system would require more money and so would every other benevolent project that comes up.
It is only one example of how fiscal liberals, Democrats and Republicans alike, flagrantly disregard the taxpayers. It is much easier to pay for something with somebody else's money.
The United States currently has almost $8 trillion in national debt. The reasons why are, in large part, fiscal mismanagement and overspending. Every time an industry is ailing, we pick them back up with subsidies. Companies no longer have to be responsible for their own actions. In our current state, we might as well call ourselves a socialist country.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Ryan
posted 4/18/08 @ 9:57 AM CST
I agree whole heartedly with you on the free market issue. We are a free market society, so let it be a free market. We do not need government interfearing in it. (Continued…)
James Orleans
posted 4/18/08 @ 11:12 AM CST
I live in New Orleans. If FEMA is any indicator how big government handles problems, I'm terrified what it would do to health care. It's bad enough my company has to pay $10,000 per year to cover my family, but I still have to wait in line behind those on Medicaid, which will end up under-reimbursing the doctor/hospital, further driving up costs for those who actually pay. (Continued…)
Roger
posted 4/20/08 @ 9:52 AM CST
Agreed...... I am ashamed of the mess we are leaving our children to deal with. Spend now pay later...... Even rich people (and countries) can go BANKRUPT
Post a Comment