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
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Does government stupidity know any bounds?
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


These are tough days for political satirists. Any satire about government boondoggles is soon upstaged by an actual government program that's more inane than anything comedians could invent. After the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed a compassionate piece of legislation called the Supplemental Terrorist Relief Act. It was to give low-interest loans to small businesses disrupted by the attacks, allowing them to rebuild. The loans were supposed to help hotels, retailers, and small service businesses in lower Manhattan.

But, as usual, the government passed your money out everywhere. Terrorist Relief Act loans went to Dunkin' Donuts shops in Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Vermont, and Ohio. The manager of the Essex Junction, Vt., Dunkin' Donuts defended his loan, saying 9/11 affected his business. "Instead of getting probably a large coffee and a couple of doughnuts," Tony Silva said, his customers got "a small coffee and a doughnut."

The Patriot Act was supposed to provide federal funding to states to equip the fire, police, and EMS officers who serve at the front lines of a terrorist attack. But the congressmen who wrote the law apparently believed that patriotism starts at home. Money was allocated under a complicated formula where each state, regardless of its size or location, got an equal slice of the pie before risk was even considered.

One result is that the police and fire departments in Casper, Wyo., (population 49,644), can talk to one another, and to their hospitals and EMS units, on a brand-new communications system. New York City (population 8,000,000) is still waiting for a similar system. Colchester, Vt., got $58,000 for a rescue vehicle capable of boring through concrete to search for victims in collapsed buildings. Colchester has a population of 18,000 souls and a severe shortage of big buildings.

It gets worse. Government health programs require states to pay for men's erections. I'm all for men having good sex lives, but why would government subsidize that?

Because our bloated government just cannot stop vomiting out the money. For years Medicaid has been spending millions of dollars on Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs. The Clinton administration told states they had to pay, because the law requires that Medicaid pay for any FDA-approved drug deemed medically necessary. Bush administration officials kept the policy. They wouldn't agree to a television interview about it.

Doctors are so addicted to government funding that even insane and embarrassing subsidies are passionately defended. "Erectile dysfunction is not fun, it's a disease," said Dr. Steven Lamb, who appears often on ABC. "It needs to be treated. It needs to be paid for."

I gave him a hard time about it. "Sex is a government entitlement now? Do you ever think about budgeting? What the taxpayer pays?"

"What we're trained in is to be your advocate," he said. "I do not take costs into account."

Of course not. Government-funded medical programs invite doctors to declare endless "needs" -- knowing someone else will bear the cost.

Eventually there was outrage. Sadly, not merely because people woke up and realized that government shouldn't fund Viagra. No, only when money was needed for Hurricane Katrina relief and it was revealed that the government was giving Viagra to child molesters did Congress allow Medicare and Medicaid to stop paying for erections. Congress allowed states to stop. But some states still pay.

Will Rogers once said, "Thank goodness we don't get all the government we pay for."

I say we still get, and pay for, more than enough.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Government Stupidity
NO!

Regarding the ED drugs. The government, by design, at the Federal level wasn't to be involved in any healthcare funding. If that is to occur, it was to be at the state level. It isn't a question of whether or not someone is entitled to relief but where it comes from. The Federal government was, by design, not to get involved.

Here is a very good article on that intent, in which Col. Crockett, yes, that Davy Crocket, when a Representative, got called on the carpet by a voter for "social spending."
quote:

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."
snip----------------
"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'
snip-------------
"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.
---------------------------------------
http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

The story is one well worth reading and the result of that confrontation changed the way Col. Crockett voted from that time on. But, more important, it conveys the true intent of our founders for the Federal Government and social spending.

Regarding the Constitution, "we the people" have the right to convey as much power to the Federal Government as we want, but we didn't. The Court gave itself more power and the Federal Government as well. We never amended the Federal Government with the intent to give it the power of social spending though that has been interpreted as such.

What we did amend that really hurt us was the 16th amendment. Whether you agree with the fair tax act or not, which wouldn't stop social spending, the one thing they have right is to repeal the 16th amendment. If we are going to pay for our social programs at any level of government we have to pay for them in a manner that the average citizen (voter) sees what it costs him.

Business taxes, even taxes on profits all come from consumers in the prices they pay and only taxes in the price on exports are paid for by anyone but American consumers and with that tax we pay in the prices we pay, are also the compliance costs for collecting tax from us though business.

Quote:
According to a 2001 U.S. government report entitled "The Impact of Regulatory Costs on Small Firms," companies spent roughly $800 billion annually on federal compliance issues before Sarbanes-Oxley was even drafted.
====================
http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1540,1846782,00.asp

In testimony before the tax panel
quote:
"We spend about $400 billion a year complying with the tax code. We spend $200 billion a year just filling out IRS paperwork," said Rep. John Linder (search) , R-Ga., who has proposed a bill that would create a national sales tax.
=========================
http://www.legalizefreedom.us/article63.html

quote:
For instance, a wage earner in an average-tax state must earn $17,038 to purchase a $10,000 car. That means that the work er pays $7,038 in income, payroll, and sales taxes on a $10,000 car. The study finds that in some high-tax states, such as California and New York, the "true" price to consum ers of goods and services is twice the retail price because of taxes.
===============================
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-015.html

What does all that mean? It means that even a low wage earner could pay income tax and save money. Not only would he save moeny, he would be just as mad as you are when his tax rate was threatened to go up. About 1/2 the workers pay no income tax but they pay over 42% in taxes.

35% in hidden taxes in the paycheck to paycheck prices he pays. 7.5% in payroll tax and in many states 8% sales tax. That, alone adds up to 50%. That is part of the reason Chinese making $2 an hour in a GM factory in China have $10 per hour buying power and China's middle class is growing so fast. It is also why they can have 40% saving rate (part of which is for their share of personal accounts for social security and healthcare plans that government and business also contribute to)

Now, look at social security, 90% of your earnings only up to $606 is counted after which only 32% is counted up to $3,653 at which time you only count 15% toward your retirement check. Can you live on $545 (90% of $606) and then 32% of what you now make? No. Yet we tell voters it is a good program for the low wage earners. Only 4% of a low wage earner in the Thrift Savings Plan that 11 million government and other pension people are in, and only in the bond funds, would give them as much as retirement as 12.4% does now. And that 12.4% is in the price we pay and have to compete with foreign natios with. We are in the top five highest corporate tax natiosn and yet, in spite of the fact we are not tax competitive and losing business because of it, we are saddled with it and the compliance costs that keep prices too high to compete.

Get rid of the 16th amendment. Before that time, the states collected the "federal taxes allowed" and forwarded them and we had "power" over the federal government. Not it has power over us.

Quote:
That government is best which governs least.

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!
==============================
Thomas Jefferson

Take away their power and you can control their spending.

Gummint stupidity
Hell, I work for the gummint and I find a lot stupid, wasteful and a much bigger chunk out of our hip pockets than is really necessary. Tis shameful really when our elected and hired officials care more about power through our pockets than about doing right.

Gummint stupidity
Hell, I work for the gummint and I find a lot stupid, wasteful and a much bigger chunk out of our hip pockets than is really necessary. Tis shameful really when our elected and hired officials care more about power through our pockets than about doing right.

Government support of Cancer patients
I served 25 yrs in the US Armed Forces. Now I am on disability and I have prostate cancer. The ED medications after your prostate is removed are prohibitively expensive. I am not a sexual criminal but I do have a need for quality of life. Most men by the age of 80 will have encounters of this sort. We have not asked for this by anything we did, cancer is by "luck of the draw." I'm surprised that John didn't do his homework before making these remarks. That's not like him. Breast, prostate, skin, blood are all cancers that our government must support.

Government has no immunity to stupidity
Katrina is a perfect example of this. Look how much money was thrown around just to get people from complaining and pointing fingers of blame.

He/She said it
Harmoney hit the nail on the head. Our government sucks. Friends that we elect shortly become the establishment. If you read some of the liberal blogs (if you can hold down the nausea) and compare them to Libertarians and Conservatives, most people are basically saying, "leave us alone".

Gripes, But No Action
My outrage over government spending has been one of my sore spots for years. My word for these politicians is "thieves". We can "talk over the kitchen table" forever, which includes our posts to the subject, but it doesn't accomplish a thing.

How much power do we really have with our vote? Did any Bush-voter predict we'd get a big, spendthrift federal government? Or a president who refuses to effectively protect our borders, despite the will of the majority of Americans?

Short of a nationwide refusal to pay taxes... OUR money.. for these self-serving politicians to squander at will, I'm at a loss.

I read all the posts to this subject and they are depressing, as is mine.

food stamps
One to add to the list of well spent taxpayer money. A radio ad campaign aggressively soliciting more applicants for food stamps. I heard it on the radio yesterday in Atlanta. The ad is from the Dept of Agriculture. Can you believe it? The budget is through the roof and we are spending, I am sure millions, on advertising to give even more money away!

9/11 compensation
I am treasurer of a church saddled with a million-dollar debt due to an insurance company liquidation triggered by 9/11. We have had no success trying to get any relief, even working through our Congressman. I would think we are at least as deserving as the Dunkin Donuts.

Buck Said:
Said it before, will say it again.

"The colonies revolted from England. King George did not want to grant the colonies independence. Not because England would lose revenue but because Georgie didn't think the colonists had enough sense to govern themselves.

Two Hundred Thirty Years later, I tend to agree with His Majesty...."

Hear! Hear!

As I've stated before here, there's a reason for the term "ignorant masses."

Sleaze !
Folks, this situation doesn’t exist just in government. It happens in the private world as well, and by the same type of people - in government, doctors offices, by consumers, etc. These people are called “sleaze.”

I’m a semiretied remodeler, and all of my life I've run into these people. If it isn’t their money, they will spend it like drunken sailors - no disrespect to sailors. Unethical sleaze is what they are. Period!

I once had a customer say to me: "Well. It doesn't hurt to ask." To which I replied: "Yes it does, because by even asking you make your true character obvious."

Said it before, will say it again.
The colonies revolted from England. King George did not want to grant the colonies independence. Not because England would lose revenue but because Georgie didn't think the colonists had enough sense to govern themselves.
Two Hundred Thirty Years later, I tend to agree with His Majesty....

HSTeach
Seriously, you are quite correct. If that sort of justification were required the federal budget would balance itself. Not to mention individual states having to be, oh horrors, more responsible (and responsive) to the citizens of said state.

HSTeach
Good idea. In addition maybe it should also require that a previous act of congress must be retired before a new one can take it's place.

How about a law that simply states that every act of Congress must be appended with the article and section of the Constitution that justifies said act?

Stossel said -
Stossel said,

"Doctors are so addicted to government funding that even insane and embarrassing subsidies are passionately defended. "Erectile dysfunction is not fun, it's a disease," said Dr. Steven Lamb, who appears often on ABC. "It needs to be treated. It needs to be paid for."

I gave him a hard time about it. "Sex is a government entitlement now? Do you ever think about budgeting? What the taxpayer pays?"


A "hard time" about it? LMAO! I am surprised that someone else didn't catch that.

Sammy, the Constitution is Irrelevant
Sorry to say. Life is all about self interest. That is the reason that communism will never work.

Congresscritters and other politicians have to have something to offer their people. Now, they can offer tax cuts (always popular), but unless they do it intelligently like Newt did with the CWA, spending cuts are a non-starter. Why? Because there is always someone who benefits from that spending. And you can bet that the press will find them.

The Republicans are spending money like drunken sailors because they have to in order to keep their jobs. And they are the only judges of that behavior.

If we could change the way the laws are made, we might have a chance, but then again, that is controlled by the legislators and they will be unlikely to change it.

I fear that we are in the declining years of our nation and that only some form of revolution will bring the changes so desperately needed.

Balance of Power
From time to time there is some talk about the "checks and balances" among the three co-equal branches of the Federal Government. Before the New Deal there existed another check on the spendthrift proclivities of the central government - the power of the individual States. After the New Deal, the central government (through the Federal Reserve Bank) borrowed to "pay" for everything. The direct income tax ammendment gave them the resources to do so. The ammendment providing for the direct election of Senators simultaneously diminished the power of the individual State Legislators to check the power of the central government.

To begin to restore some fiscal sanity among Congress Members, pass a law to require individual States legislatures must remit to the central government, in proportion to their representation, to pay for the interest on the nationl debt. This would require no Constitutional Ammendment. Repealing the sixteenth and seventeenth Ammendments would come later.

Praying at the altar of Mammon
The sad fact is that when a politician runs on a platform saying "I am going to go to Congress and make sure that they don't send any money to our state," he/she is a sure loser. People don't want government spending anywhere except where they live. I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who stated that Democracy would last only until the people realized they could vote themselves a pay raise.

What About the Constitution?
There is probably no constitutional basis for as much as 90% of what our federal government attempts to provide. If the elected officials and judges actually adhered to the limitations of the document that they swear allegiance to upon taking office then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If our Federal government weren't so involved in all of their non-constitutional duties then perhaps they could actually perform the few duties that are enumerated in the constitution with at least some level of competence.

In America today, we essentially have no controlling authority over the actions and responsibilities of our federal government since our organizing document is completely ignored. It truly is the tyranny of the majority -- if you have the votes then you can essentially do anything you want. Even without a majority of support among constituents many projects and initiatives manage to navigate their way through the vast, complex, and bloated state of our federal government and are allowed to pass under the cover of all of this complexity. The benefits of a particular piece of legislation accrue to a small well-organized group while the costs are spread out amongst a disinterested, uninformed, and unfocused general populace -- and that's how the system works and how our government speeds ever closer to outright socialism and complete control of our lives despite a Constitution that is supposed to prevent all of this from happening. I guess that any document is only as good as the entrusted people who have sworn to uphold it!


Look at the $$ We've Spent!
Jeff writes:
"Even conservatives are not immune. The people back home want to see them DO SOMETHING. And if they don't they won't get re-elected. And the whole thing is that when you do something, it is gonna cost money."

Regret that he is correct.

But here's something that always gets me. Notice that when our politicians talk about their accomplishments, they talk in terms of how much money they have spent, rather than describe any results.
For example, we "have spent over $1.5 billion on the levees in New Orleans" or we "have spent nearly $7 trillion on poverty in this country".

Both statements are probably correct, but no one seems to ever ask the follow-up question:
"And what, pray tell, have we ACCOMPLISHED with that spending?"

They equate spending with "caring", and all of them are apparently willing to walk away from any responsibility for results.

Well you know...
This kind of behavior is going to continue as long as the Democrats are in the Whitehouse, control the senate and congress. That’s why I always tell everyone to vote Republican. Woops, I mistakenly sent a comment from ’79. Some times I feel we’ve been had. We had such high hopes in 1980. Of course, I was much younger then.

Government Waste
Timf is right as far as he goes. The waste occurs partly because there is no accountability. Look at the reports where departments has LOST $billions due to inefficiency.

But that is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that people tend to do what keeps their job and gets them raises and to ignore the rest.

What does a congresscritter need to do to keep his job? Pass a lot of laws that please his constituents. Even if the laws are flawed or not needed, he must show actions to "solve" the problems of his people. Out of work? Jobs program. Sick? Medical care. And so on.

As there are no limits to problems people have, there are no limits to the solutions governments can offer. So what if they don't work. At least we cared and tried.

Even conservatives are not immune. The people back home want to see them DO SOMETHING. And if they don't they won't get re-elected. And the whole thing is that when you do something, it is gonna cost money.

See my blog at http://unpure_reason.townhall.com/Default.aspx

Does government stupidity know any bound
The march into Iraq and all the "terrorist" spending bopught
George Bush enough votes for a second term.
.
remember this brillant government gave us Prohibition in 1920
and created millionaire bootleggers by 1922.
that failed so they gave us drug prohibition along with dope
pushers getting rich selling kits contraband in school yards and BILLIONAIRE drug cartels.
.
The American people asked for this stuff and got it !
Gary Letterle
West Farmington Ohio

Have they no shame?
This article and any other list of insane spending projects should be posted in huge letters on the wall behind the leader of the house and senate with a large flashing total of the cost of the waste and abuse of the taxpayers.

Congress
As my husband regularly says, "The only time we are safe is when Congress in in recess". All this pork spending is killing us, but while I blame Congress for this pork, I place even more blame on those of us in the public who actively try to get some of that money in Washington, D.C. and those of us who pay absolutely no attention to what goes on about us. Many in our public pay far more attention to movie stars than they do our government who controls every facet of their lives. Amazingly this seems almost irreversible.

Government stupidity is redundant
The reason government acts stupidly is the result of collectivism. Government like social service agencies get funding from sources other than their actions. Taxes support government and donations fund non-governmental social services. As a result nothing they do affects their income. This creates an artificial environment where idiocy is free to run rampant.

A small business must operate in the real world. A small business owner has to keep his customers happy or he will be out of business. A small business owner cannot waste money or otherwise act foolishly. A big company is more like a collective. Much of their income is derived from commercial inertia. When ADM, Cargill, or other agricultural giants discover they can’t compete, they get the government to help them. Like operating slave factories with illegal labor.

Government or corporations will never act reasonably as long as they are not forced to pay financially for their foolishness.

no common sense
The average cost of pregnancy for mother and infant is $10,000. Currently, 23 states require insurers to cover birth control which is a step in the right direction but still not adequate.
Meanwhile, Chester the child molester can trot into a pharmacy and get his erectile dysfunction dealt with unquestioned because the government believes he has the "right" to sex.





A Spot-On Quotation
"Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his 'basic rights.'"
- Dr. Thomas Sowell

Money and Government
Cut taxes to the bone....make less available and there will be less to spend...except there are bonds to sell and Social Security funds to tap...and as the economy grows even small tax rates bring in more money for the feds to waste. Remember that all expenditures are about local elections.....and won't stop as long as some citizen in muleshoe wants a new donkey museum....or some construction union a project in Boston.

Don't tell me...
...the government is hard up for money...

"I do not take costs into account."
That's what the doctor said, but also what each and every congress wo/man says.

It's easy to throw money around - when it isn't yours.

In answer to the title: No.
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.