 |
| 1960 Chevy Impala-One Sweet Ride |
One piece of false propaganda that seems to permeate the current federal budget talks is that programs cannot be cut because they have existed forever. This view is spread by liberals and
In 1960, the federal budget was about $92 Billion. In 2010, the federal government spent about $3.46 Trillion. Let's look at that.
conservatives alike. Agency web sites give false histories that make them seem much older than they truly are. The Department of Health and Human Services, established in 1980, tells its history as beginning in 1798 with "Passage of an act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen." This false statement of antiquity is used to make the department seem more vital and indispensable. In fact, many programs and cabinet level departments did not exist 50 years ago. Although 50 years may seem like long ago, given that the United States is over 200 years old, it's really not that long ago and definitely not forever.
In 1960, the federal budget was about $92 Billion. In 2010, the federal government spent about $3.46 Trillion. Let's look at that.
1960 $92,000,000,000
2010 $3,460,000,000,000
That is a lot more money!! More than $3.3 trillion more!!
The proposed 2012 budget for the Department of Transportation, established 1966, is larger than the ENTIRE federal budget in 1960. Some programs that didn't exist in 1960 include Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Head Start, the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, Food Stamps and the DEA. Some of the cabinet level departments that didn't exist are the Departments of Transportation, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Housing and Urban Development. Just cutting these historically new departments will save about $1.2 Trillion from the 2012 budget.
The proposed 2012 budget for the Department of Transportation, established 1966, is larger than the ENTIRE federal budget in 1960. Some programs that didn't exist in 1960 include Public Broadcasting, Medicare, Head Start, the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, Food Stamps and the DEA. Some of the cabinet level departments that didn't exist are the Departments of Transportation, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Housing and Urban Development. Just cutting these historically new departments will save about $1.2 Trillion from the 2012 budget.
Was the United States really that bad of place in 1960? I don't think so. We should remember the "Good Old Days" and dig into all of these new programs. There are questions that should be asked. Did a permanent problem exist? Does this program solve that problem? Does this program not cause any other problems that are worse than the problem the program solves? Is this program constitutional? If the answers to all these questions are not a resounding yes, we should abolish the program.
Remember that almost every program that the politicians say is "sacred" is relatively new when looking at the history of the United States. Many have not been in existence for 50 years and a lot of programs didn't even exist when you were young. Life wasn't all that bad then and most government programs don't make things better now. Remember the "good old days" and educate the Liberals who say,"It's been this way forever."
Remember that almost every program that the politicians say is "sacred" is relatively new when looking at the history of the United States. Many have not been in existence for 50 years and a lot of programs didn't even exist when you were young. Life wasn't all that bad then and most government programs don't make things better now. Remember the "good old days" and educate the Liberals who say,"It's been this way forever."
Hi there! Started following your RSS feed out of interest because of some Disqus comments you'd left on the CS Monitor site a couple weeks back. FWIW I have what are probably definable as "liberal" leanings in a lot of ways, but I'm also in favor of reduced government power/control, and something like fiscal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI'll definitely agree about mushrooming government, particularly in the last ten to fifteen years. We went from a projected budget surplus to an insane level of debt in about the same time it took Apple to evolve the first-ever iPod brick into the latest design of tablet computer. (Broadly speaking, Apple's course is more or less the direct mirror image of the US Fed's - from operating at a level of projected failure to absurdly successful.)
I think it can be argued that some social protection systems are worthy - but that there is a hell of a lot of waste to be found in pretty much all of them, and some probably don't need to be there at all.
HUD, for instance, is superficially a laudable program, ostensibly helping first-time home buyers to get a leg up, ostensibly improving social status and economic stability by the mechanism of home ownership, and presumably improving neighborhoods. I'm not sure that it always works that way, though, and I'm actually more impressed by the sweat-equity programs where you help build the house yourself.
I think we could probably do away with most of the DEA. Legalizing pot in the same way as alcohol would go a long way toward that, as would decriminalizing possession of many other drugs.
I'd like to see a more or less total Federal backdown on education, too. With unfunded mandates such as "No Child Left Behind", it's not possible for schools to meaningfully address the specific - and often regional - needs of their students; a national aptitude test tells nothing about what any child has actually internalized, learned, grasped.
The numbers you mention are surprising, though it's worth pointing out that if you adjust for inflation, that $92bln actually becomes something close to $700bln in 2010 dollars - so while the increase in Fed budget is still outrageous, it's somewhat less so than the raw numbers make it seem.
Editor's note: Thank you for the comments, Warren. I do not adjust for inflation because that is purposefully created by the Federal Government, also. It is a form of "hidden tax" in which the government gets to print and spend money now and we have to pay extra for it later.
ReplyDelete