Government Spending

Kind of a broad topic, eh? After a bunch of wrangling, many US taxpayers are set to receive “rebate” checks from the IRS. This is part of $168 billion economic stimulus package that was worked out by both of the silly parties in both of the houses of Congress and the silly White House. That we, as a country, could not afford it, have to float loans to pay for it, that the recipients of those rebates are going to have to pay income taxes on those rebates next year… Well, it’s silly. Wouldn’t it have just been better to not take so much tax away from the tax payers in the first place and not have so many entitlement programs? Never mind… Anyway, Chucky Schumer (Democrapic Senator from NY) is upset that the government is sending notices to taxpayers about the rebate and how to get one. “There are countless better uses for $42 million than a self-congratulatory mailer that gives the president a pat on the back for an idea that wasn’t even his,” Sen. Charles Schumer said Friday, arguing the IRS could more effectively spend the money to catch tax cheats.

Let’s see, Chucky and his fellow cohort on the Hill have this thing called the Congressional Frank. It lets Congressmen and Senators (and several others) send correspondence through the US Mail at no charge to the sender. I wonder how much gets spent on that? How much does Schumer use? And about that whole tax cheat thing… Didn’t Schumer admit to bilking taxpayers out of funds used toward paying for chartered airline flights for Schumer’s own fund-raising efforts on taxpayer time? IMO, Chucky has no business criticising this notification…


6 Responses to “Government Spending”

  1. March 8, 2008 at 10:38 am

    I find it incredibly disingenuous to talk about “entitlement programs” when more than half of the government budget is spent on the military. The quickest way to reduce the budget is to reevaluate the benefit to the country of the military and it’s stance.

    It is also a loaded phrase far removed from its original meaning in Political Economy, designed now to conjure images of unearned renumeration at the expense of “us” (the hardworking tax-paying good ol’ regular folks). The easiest proof of this earned vs unearned mentality is that the 18% of the budget that is for social spending on past military members is never listed in the supposed litany of “entitlements” that are drowning us, though they are truly an entitlement:

    An entitlement is something that provides personal financial benefits (or sometimes special government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program.

    Let’s call apples apples and admit that military pensions, Tri-Care, etc are entitlements just like Social Security, and then maybe we can have a civilized national discussion about whether or not old soldiers “deserve” more entitlements than old farmers or old office workers — you know, those people the “right” likes to say are the engine of the country.

  2. March 8, 2008 at 11:00 am

    While I never brought up the subject of military entitlements, they are certainly just as nefarious as any other this government is currently underwriting. Every single thing that the government spends our money on deserves scrutiny that will insure that the taxpayers are receiving true value for dollar. But that is just as much of a pipe dream, eh?

    Both the right and the left are equally guilty of graft, greed, corruption, and fiscal irresponsibility on behalf of the public trust. I just wanted to point out Schumer’s two-faced argument.

  3. March 8, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    So let’s talk then about the really nefarious, to use your word, entitlements the government underwrites: travel entitlements such as roads, protection entitlements such as police, fire departments and the military, legal entitlements such as a judge and/or jury, property entitlements such as deeds of ownership…

    Are you sure that entitlements are categorically “nefarious”?

  4. March 8, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    I’m not sure how to respond. I find roads and similar infrastructure to be valuable, though I have doubts at whether the way government provides it has value. I find police and fire “protection” preposterous. I don’t believe that I have the wherewithal to figure out how to determine for government whether a “value” has been achieved or not.

  5. March 8, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    And just to be clear, the point of the original post was not to advocate one entitlement over another or entitlements pro/con, in general. As I said, the intent was to point out Schumer’s hypocrisy.

Comments are currently closed.

%d bloggers like this: