Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Cal  Thomas :: Townhall.com Columnist
Spending as if There Was No Tomorrow
by Cal Thomas
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Really?

Last year, says the Heritage Foundation, the government made at least $55 billion in overpayments; the Pentagon spent almost $1 million shipping two 19-cent washers from South Carolina to Texas and $293,451 sending an 89-cent washer from South Carolina to Florida. Even the coming postal rate increases aren't that high.

Washington spends $60 billion per year on corporate welfare compared to $50 billion on homeland security. Suburban families are receiving large farm subsidies for the grass in their back yards, subsidies that many of these families never requested and do not want. Over half of all farm subsidies go to corporate farms with average household incomes of $200,000.

And then there is my personal favorite: government auditors spent the last five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them - costing taxpayers $123 billion per year - fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

This is outrageous. That our elected officials participate in this sham and then claim they can't afford to cut anything ought to disgust us all, especially when some are planning to spend even more. It demonstrates that a government program is proof of eternal life in Washington.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Cal Thomas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
TomLibertarian
You wrote, "....but tax reform is not really relevant to the issue of runaway spending. Politicians don't base spending decisions on revenues or on the tax code, so they won't suddenly cut spending because we've achieved tax reform."

I beg to differ just a little bit while agreeing with the main point of your posting. Spending is definitely the issue that needs to be addressed; however, I think the that reforming the tax code could help. You see, If politicians cannot give tax breaks to their friends, then their friends will stop donating money to their campaigns. The FAIR TAX and a flat tax remove the government's power to do social engineering. For example, the dems right now passed a bill to disallow oil companies from getting a certain tax break while leaving it in place for manufacturing firms. Why? Because the Dems argued that the oil companies didn't need it. (I think that the real reason is that it was politically popular to do so, no more.)

The current tax code empowers politician to reward/punish businesses and individuals. This power leads lobbyists to shower gifts and money in order to get preferential treatment. The FAIR TAX (or flat tax) would significantly reduce that power and thus do away with the reasons for lobbyists to influence politicians to scratch their backs. Who wins? The taxpayers do because politicians would then be more likely to look our for the people's interest rather than their own.

Wendy
First, thank you for your support of the line-item veto proposal I made.

Wendy, I have to disagree with you on the effect of an earmark ban. Permit me to explain... If politicians can't funnel money to garner more contributions to their reelection campaigns, then the incumbent advantage is markedly lessened. That means they can be voted out and it is much harder to get rich at taxpayer expense.

You may recall Duke Cunningham went to jail for accepting millions in bribes from defense contractors to steer government money their way. Barack got a boat load of money for the hospital where his wife used to work. I could cite many more.

How can any challenger of modest means compete with incumbents doling out money in exchange for campaign contributions and lucrative favors? By banning earmarks, it will fundamentally change the way business is done in Washington. Instead of doing the bidding of donors, our politicians can return to doing the business of the people like fixing the entitlement programs as you suggested.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.