Which Spending Is Important?

      According to certain politicians in D.C. every nickel
government spends is vitally important.  Cutting any expenditure
will jeopardize the future of the nation and its citizens.  The
politicians claim that even a small cut in the rate of increase in
government spending will bring on disaster.

     The now famous, or infamous, sequester doesn't reduce
government spending by even one cent.  It only reduces the
spending increases that the big spenders claim are vital.  Even
the House Republicans' proposed "drastic" cuts will, by their
own admission, result in government spending increasing by
more than one trillion dollars a year by the end of a decade.

     Let us consider a multiple choice question.  Which of the
following expenditures are vital and untouchable: a) $277,000
for three White House calligraphers: b) $1,500,000 to study why
lesbians are fat (supposedly most of them are): c) $227,000 for
Michigan State University to study how "National Geographic"
depicted animals for 120 years;  d) an undetermined amount for
White House tours?

     According to the politicians and bureaucrats only (d) is
expendable.  The first three march on.  A TV station ran a
feature showing that an invitation crafted with inexpensive
software was indistinguishable from one crafted by the three
pricey White House calligraphers.

     I don't question that a bankrupt nation can't afford to
spend on White House tours.  How can this same nation afford
the first three expenditures?

     There is a simple solution to the White House tour
problem.  Contract with a business to conduct the tours. 
Charge the business for any government costs of the tours.  The
business would charge its customers to recover its cost and earn
a profit.  If the tourists don't consider the tours worth paying for,
then ending the tours is the right thing to do.

     The government is also planning to buy 400,000 tons of
sugar to raise sugar prices and help the sugar industry.  Through
quotas, etc. the government already enables US sugar producers
to sell sugar at twice the price of sugar in the rest of the world. 
Without government protection the US sugar industry would
likely all but vanish.  So what?  We could use the resources,
including labor, to produce something to trade for cheaper sugar.

     How vital is it that the government spends to make
consumers pay more for sugar?  How much sugar is produced in
Canada, Norway, Sweden and other cool climate countries? 
These countries do fine without sugar production.  And, the
consumers pay half as much for sugar as we do.  Also, how
many bananas are grown in the US?

     There is a bit more behind the proposed government
sugar purchase.  The government lent money to the sugar
industry.  Even with the inflated price of sugar, the sugar
producers are having problems paying off the loans.  Thus,
government proposes spending millions of dollars for sugar to
raise prices enough so the sugar produces can repay the
government.

     The phrase that keeps popping into my mind is
"Throwing good money after bad."  This is also a solid example
of how government tries to paper over one mistake with another.

     These few examples aren't even a big start on saving the
nation from bankruptcy.  I didn't do any searching to find them. 
They simply popped up in headlines over the past few weeks. 
Undoubtedly these examples are the tip of the iceberg that
serious research would find.  Some have done that research and
found hundreds of billions of dollars is wasteful and frivolous
spending.

     The problem is that even frivolous expenditures are
someone's income   The people who get the money consider it
important, even if they too believe their work is frivolous. 
These people vote and lobby.  They also circle the wagons and
defend each other's special privileges.  If government can't fire
at least one of three White House calligraphers, How will it ever
screw up the courage to eliminate the billions in ethanol
subsidies and other government boondoggles?

                                 * * * * *
                                  * * * *
                                   * * *
                                    * *
                                     *
Copyright 2013
Albert D. McCallum