As I watch the furor around the new DOGE, I'm shocked by the number of left wing idiots who are virtually in tears because a couple of successful business guys are going to make recommendations on how to get rid of waste in government. It's almost like they are cheering for government waste, fraud and abuse or something.
One complaint that I hear regularly is that these billionaires are going to cut Social Security benefits for people. Bullshit. Let's start with the obvious, Social Security is a horrible ROI for the vast majority of people. Then let's acknowledge that the money that was supposed to be set aside in a "trust fund" for recipients has been spent by lawmakers. While we're at it, it's acknowledge that the "overpopulation" nuts and idiots who've driven our birthrate down have undermined the foundation of Social Security. Finally, let's acknowledge that changes need to be made. Raise the tax rate, raise the income cap, raise the retirement age, eliminate tax on SS benefits, allow surviving spouses to collect at least a percentage of their spouses benefits, just to name a few. Obviously, the best option is to transition into a privatized system where at least half of the withholding goes into an account controlled by the taxpayer and where they are encouraged to pick vehicles with better ROI.
I also hear people whining about what will happen to government employees who are fired from unnecessary jobs. Strangely enough, the same people worried about government employees losing their jobs, and passionately committed to eliminating the jobs of millions of American taxpayers in industries that they deem harmful. What was it that leftist elites told miners who were concerned about losing their jobs? "Learn to code", was the phrase I heard often, well sounds like good advice for soon to be ex government employees as well.
The other, related, complaint I hear from idiots is that tariffs will be passed on to consumers. Strangely enough, these are the same lemmings that constantly complain about increasing corporate taxes as if those aren't passed on to consumers also. Let's start with the basic premise that every cost to every business is passed on to the consumer. Then let's look at the potential benefits of tariffs. If tariffs encourage consumers to buy products from companies that make their products in the US, that seems like a win on multiple levels. More jobs, more tax revenue, more capitol expenditures (which also equal more jobs/tax revenues), also seems like a good thing. If tariffs cause Chinese business to become less competitive, which decreases China's ability to effect world affairs negatively, that also seems positive. Finally, if tariffs can cause countries to change things that harm the US and allow US companies to compete on a level playing field internationally, that seems positive as well.
My point is not that tariffs are the best possible option, or that we should immediately impose them. My point is that it might be worth taking a look at all sides of tariffs before reflexively following the other lemmings.
The common thread in all of this is that the US government, should be prioritizing the needs and well being of US citizens and taxpayers over all else. If hard choices need to be made to save/extend/improve Social Security, then lets study the problem and choose the best possible solutions based on something other than partisan bitching. If waste exists in the government (the very notion that waste might not exist in the federal government is literally insane), then let's get rid of it. It's not the role of the US taxpayers to subsidize inertia and waste just because we have in the past. The amount of energy being spent to defend government waste, illegal aliens who commit violent crimes, and those who want fewer chemicals in our food is strange.
4 comments:
Well said.
Thanks. The notion of attacking anyone who wants to address government waste on such flimsy grounds, with no understanding of the process is effectively defending that waste. The reality seems to be that POTUS has great latitude in eradicating waste in the executive branch, and Trump seems willing to use that power for good. Beyond that, DOGE will be making recommendations only and it'll be up to congress to pass the ones that they choose and explain why the didn't pass the rest.
The idiocy that SS doesn't need significant changes if it is to be sustained is idiotic. That Trump might be willing to address those since he's a lame duck is encouraging. Biden/Harris were certainly too cowardly to even have the conversation, so the willingness to explore solutions seems healthy.
The default of assuming that anything the other side does is automatically 100% bad and should not even be discussed seems like the worst default for our current situation. Seeking good ideas, regardless of their source, and exploring the ideas should be the starting point.
More well said stuff.
I really want to see some absolutely public finger pointing as regards those who fail to support cuts of wasteful spending...a true forcing of such people to defend their opposition. I can accept the possibility that certain cuts might actually be a bad idea, but not simply because someone making hay on the item says so. Prove it. Convince we the people.
Given the fact that so many reject the idea of large families, and others are financially unable to produce them, SS must be adjusted to accommodate the fact that this Ponzi scheme no longer has the contributions it once did during a time when going forth and multiplying was the order of the day.
The default of assuming that anything the other side does is automatically 100% bad is Standard Operating Procedure for the party with no ideas. Given the Democrat Party offers nothing more solid than nice sounding platitudes, it has to be painful to be constantly confronted with actual fleshed out proposals.
I agree. That's why I like the fact that at least some of these cuts will have to go through the legislature. We'll get a really good idea of who supports wasteful spending and who doesn't.
Marginal hypothetical. They go to congress to get rid of the TVA, and a bunch of legislators vote to keep it because there is one small thing that the TVA does that is valuable. Instead of proposing an amendment to keep the one thing, they vote to keep the entire TVA.
Yes, SS needs to be changed to accommodate reality. It's strange that so many people rebel at the notion of changing SS to accommodate the reality of 2024. Especially since they're the type of people who've driven the drop in birthrate.
No, it's pretty much the default for many on both sides. As you point out, if the DFL offered any substantial proposal for anything the appropriate response would be to study and consider it with a eye to negotiating to make it better.
Post a Comment