Let’s expand the corporate welfare state. . . After all, it worked out so well for GM and Detroit. Tad DeHaven, with Cato, joined the program to discuss the way States and the Feds are trying to pick winners and losers. (They’re mostly picking losers, by the way.)
In a recent op-ed for the Indianapolis Star I discussed the symbiotic relationship between federal and state government when it comes to doling out corporate welfare subsidies.
In addition to doing little to curb the size of government, it does nothing to rein in the federal government’s scope.
Last week I discussed the tendency for policymakers to treat the Pentagon like a giant jobs program. It was prompted by an article from the Associated Press on members of Congress shoving unwanted upgraded Abrams tanks down taxpayers’ throats because retooling tanks sustains jobs back in the district.
Over the past two years Congress has spent almost a half billion taxpayer dollars—and wants to spend another $436 million—upgrading Abrams tanks that experts and the Army itself say aren’t needed.
As I often point out, waste always comes with government the same way a Happy Meal always comes with a toy and drink. There is duplication and waste in the federal government because it has become massive and there are virtually no limits on what politicians can spend money on.
The president will apparently propose modest measures to slow the growth in entitlement spending in exchange for more tax increases. That would raise hopes for what the Beltway class likes to refer to as the “grand bargain,” but for those of us who are looking for considerably less government in our lives it would hardly be cause for enthusiasm.
More effective (or efficient) government is also what liberals stand for
Saturday Night Live’s mocking of the administration’s sky-is-falling posture is a hopeful indication that the anti-spending cuts politicians might have overplayed their hand.
Grassley: Will Loretta Lynch's Qualifications Transfer to Correcting Serious Problems at DOJ? | Katie Pavlich