The Real Scandal in Washington Is the Government's Reckless Spending
Those sounding the loudest alarms about possible shutdowns are largely silent when Congress ignores its own budgetary rules. All that seems to matter is that government is metaphorically funded.

You've undoubtedly noticed how up in arms everyone becomes when the government is on the verge of shutting down. I've also noticed that the people who most loudly express their horror at the notion of a partial government closure seem totally comfortable with the fiscal wall we are barreling into. That wall is being built, brick by brick, by two political parties that are unwilling to end Washington's spending debauchery.
This isn't to deny that some people would have been hurt by the recently averted shutdown (which, by the way, would not have made our debt smaller). It's a call for consistency from anyone putting their good-government sensibilities on display.
Those sounding the loudest alarms last week are largely silent on the countless occasions when Congress ignores its own budgetary rules. They are rarely outraged when the government is financed with legislation that only expands the balance sheet regardless of whether the money is well spent. All that seems to matter is that government is metaphorically funded, since it usually means growing deficits and explosive debt.
Democrats and Republicans alike engage in fiscal recklessness by passing spending bills they don't have the first cent to pay for. Politicians who won't be around to pay the costs shower today's voters with money that must be repaid by tomorrow's taxpayers, many of whom aren't yet born.
They rashly dispense tax credits, loan guarantees, and subsidies to big companies to do what they were going to do without these government-granted favors. The most recent example of this folly is the Inflation Reduction Act, which doled out billions in subsidies to green energy companies for projects most of the recipients had announced months before the bill was passed.
Republicans and Democrats also share in the habit of re-upping subsidies to large agricultural interests, which often raise the price of food. They sneakily bundled those subsidies into a bill that hands out Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits—popularly known as food stamps—to the tune of $145 billion in 2023 (an increase from $63 billion in 2019).
Beyond the hidden subsidies, the SNAP program is ineffective at lifting families out of poverty. SNAP is designed in ways that likely create disincentives to work. American Enterprise Institute scholars have shown that as many as 71 percent of households receiving food stamps contain no workers and only about 6 percent have a full-time worker. If earning extra money means losing even more in government benefits, many people will understandably choose not to. Ultimately, such a system is bad for recipients and their children, who remain impoverished. Yet it persists because Congress won't do much about it.
But the worst is of course the bipartisan refusal to reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Most of this spending is on autopilot, allowing Congress to repeatedly ignore the problem and others to argue that we should further increase benefits. It's also the driver of our current and future debt. Where's the outrage about this fiscal madness? Where are the demands that politicians show us their plans for reform?
One thing's for sure: These calls aren't coming from the shutdown alarmists. How many of them write similarly panicky commentaries about how, in about 10 years, Congress' blatant inaction will lead to across-the-board cuts to entitlement benefits for both the rich and the poor? After all, if legislators decide to borrow more to avoid cuts rather than reforming the programs, it will add another $116 trillion over 30 years to our debt just for Medicare and Medicaid.
Newspapers should be full of reports about how Congress repeatedly fails to perform its core function and avoid this level of fiscal drama altogether. Elected officials should be too embarrassed to show their faces in public. Instead, they can just promise more spending because the real "crisis" is apparently that someone is trying to slam on the brakes—not that there's a fiscal wall looming ahead.
The federal budget is on a treacherous path and Congress is to blame. Politicians are continuously delinquent on their obligation to be good stewards of our fiscal health, but the "irresponsibility" that most reporters and commentators raise their voices against is the risk of shutdown. These people are upset about the symptoms, not the fatal disease.
The ultimate blame rests on the shoulders of the American people. We routinely elect politicians without care for our fiscal situation. Politicians respond to incentives, and voters mostly signal that we won't punish them for poor performance. The alarm is ringing. It's time to wake up, America.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
De Rugy for the win once more. These clowns overspent by 33 trillion dollars, and expect us, and our kids, and their kids to pay for it. 4 trillion dollars was enough to run a colossal government just 5 years ago, but we’re supposed to believe now that 6 trillion is required, and there’s nothing left to cut? Cut spending back to 2018 levels, and the budget would be balanced right now, today. Was the government too weak and anemic in 2018? Or was it way too big then too?
My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is what I do…. http://Www.Smartcash1.com
No one wants to cut what they like.
Even Reason loves free abortions and government funded museums.
If you can't cut funding to museums, how do you expect them to cut things like welfare or social security or whatever government teat that person is sucking on?
Well. In an actual Constitutional USA the SCOTUS would deem 90% of it UN-Constitutional.
We don't live in a USA anymore. We live in a Democratic [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire.
Proof?
Enumerated Powers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_States)
I didn’t see fiat money in the constitution either.
All we have to do is prohibit government from initiating force.
This title brings attention to the concerning issue of unchecked government spending, presenting it as a substantial concern in Washington.
https://simplified.com/ai-photo-enhancer
“Where’s the outrage about this fiscal madness? Where are the demands that politicians show us their plans for reform?”
It largely does not exist, or is drowned out by the outrage against potentially cutting benefits to people who sincerely believe they are owed those benefits because they were forced to pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems and they are highly motivated voters on that issue. People who hold your view, are not very motivated to vote on that issue at all. Therefore Congress, as a whole, has no motivation to immolate itself going against Social Security and Medicare.
That is the difference. Social Security and Medicare was a suicide pact cooked up by the New Dealers to cement their power for, what for them. was the foreseeable future. They did not care about the damage the eventual implosion would cause.
That's a stupid comment. The New Dealers did NOT create social security disability. They did NOT create supplemental security income. They created a self-funding retirement system for working people that would've remained fiscally sound without the add-ons and giveaways.
Aww, reading your other comments - no wonder you believe this myth. No it is not self funding. Sorry, it's not like it is all dividends or perpetual. It would have ran out period. Not this soon, sure - but it still would fail.
Why? Because it was created when there was like what 12 people for 1 SS recep. Now it's 3 to 1. That's not going to cover the bills.
That, and life expectancy was 65 in 1935, while it’s now near 80. SS is a Ponzi scheme, pure and simple.
It is true, however, that since there was such a large surplus of funds through the 1990’s, Congress couldn’t resist the urge to create ever more programs tied to SS tax receipts, in order to buy votes.
The corruption of our judicial system into banana republic forms that occurring before our eyes.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/10/trump-earns-himself-a-dubious-gag-order/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=second
"The problem in James’s case against Trump is that it is now a legal proceeding in name only. The state authorities — the prosecutor and the judge — have degraded the case into not merely a political exercise but a partisan persecution. The legal outcome is a foregone conclusion and the objective of the daily trial sessions is to inflict political damage on a figure abhorred by New York progressives and favored to be the Republican presidential nominee.
Am I exaggerating? You be the judge (believe me, this case could use a judge). James campaigned for office vowing to use the state’s law-enforcement apparatus to target Trump — to crawl through his life and his business, and get him on something. Not so long ago in these United States, a “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” campaign would have been disqualifying for someone seeking a state-attorney-general post..."
"Before the lawsuit was filed, when Trump protested that James was singling him out for investigation — James having proudly boasted that she was singling him out for investigation — Engoron pooh-poohed the complaint, observing that Trump was “just a bad guy she should go after.” As soon as she sued, Engoron imposed a monitor on the Trump Organization. And just as the trial was about to start, Engoron issued his decision, holding that Trump had already lost the case and that the rest of this farce will be about how much James gets to run up the score in her quest for a $250 million disgorgement windfall."
"Trump’s remarks were offensive but constitutionally permissible. The First Amendment protects obnoxious speech, political speech, and obnoxious political speech. Trump is engaged in an election campaign in which his opponents, their supporters, and the media are uninhibited in terms of what they may say about the case against him. He has a right to argue that the state’s lawsuit is a political vendetta, and that the elected-Democrat judge is in on it. Trump is not a lawyer or a member of the bar subject to rules of professional ethics (which ban abusive conduct and reciprocating against judicial abuse). And in this case, there is no chance that Trump’s extrajudicial rants will sway the jury because there is no jury."
"It is also worth observing that Engoron is largely responsible for this circus — and not just because of his mugging for the cameras. A wise judge would take pains not to litter the record with his personal disdain for one of the parties. A wise judge who understood that there would have to be a trial on at least some of the claims in the case would not have issued a judgment order, on the eve of trial, informing Trump that he’d already lost. If you’re going to have a trial under the circumstances of this case, have the trial and then issue all the rulings at once, at the end — especially if it’s a bench trial in which the judge has to make all the findings anyway.
Not content with telling Trump he had no hope, Engoron’s 35-page opinion oozes with contempt for him. It is one thing to rule against a litigant; Engoron’s adjective-rich opus teems with scorn. The judge limns Trump as an inveterate liar (which may be true, but a pre-trial judicial opinion is not the place to say so); he fines Trump’s lawyers $7,500 apiece for making “bogus” and “obstreperous” contentions; he analogizes the defense to the Marx Brothers’ movie Duck Soup (“Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?”); he adds — in case we hadn’t gotten the point — that he sees Trump as the inhabitant of “a fantasy world, not the real world”; he even gratuitously implies that the former president is guilty of foreign “influence buying” — an allegation that even James hasn’t leveled."
"We’re talking about putting out of business a multibillion-dollar conglomerate, a New York fixture for decades, in a case where no one was defrauded. We’re talking about a state trying to make sure Trump and his co-defendants (including his adult sons) can’t open a business or apply for a loan.
That’s not justice; it’s political aggression. And Trump is fighting it on those terms."
I still can't figure out how the state even has standing to sue over this.
One would thank that a bank or an insurer who lost money because the properties in question were overvalued would be front and center.
None of them are plaintiffs in the case.
My Companion mother makes 55 bucks an hour on the PC(Personal PC). She has been out of w0rk for quite some time however last month her check was 11,000 bucks only w0rking on the PC(Personal PC) for 9 hours per day.
OPEN>>>>>>bitecoinsallar12.COM
And we don't have standing to sue when the government passes some law restricting a constitutional right unless we've been damaged by it (often charged with a crime), yet NY can sue a private individual for something that harmed no one.
Because NY state law makes what Trump did illegal. Same thing with the Racketeering charges in Georgia. States are sovereign and they have the right to make certain conduct illegal.
That’s why the 10th states “or the people”….to empower the people to send packing abusive trash pails trying to persecute someone from the bench all because they don’t like them.
Blah blah blah. MAGA MAGA Maggot.
If only Democrats/Criminals weren't constantly trying to STEAL other people's money.
If only Trump and other Criminals weren't constantly trying to STEAL other people's money.
Let me guess. Tax-Cuts are theft? Not STEALING is STEALING???
Let's see Trump has stolen..1000 dollars from me because I went to his casino.
The US government takes 20% per week. Let's be generous, 10% goes to un-needy stuff.
I know you love government when Dems are in charge right?
It’s no wonder the crown, lenin, marx, keynes, krugman, etc. supported central banking. It’s a tool to destroy individual and economic Liberty. It is now used and supported by the left and republicans as they sacrifice our Liberty to secure the financial future of special interests, themselves and their political dynasties.
“Hundreds of thousands of ruble notes are being issued daily by our treasury. This is done, not in order to fill the coffers of the State with practically worthless paper, but with the deliberate intention of destroying the value of money as a means of payment. There is no justification for the existence of money in the Bolshevik state, where the necessities of life shall be paid for by work alone.
Experience has taught us it is impossible to root out the evils of capitalism merely by confiscation and expropriation, for however ruthlessly such measures may be applied, astute speculators and obstinate survivors of the capitalist classes will always manage to evade them and continue to corrupt the life of the community. The simplest way to exterminate the very spirit of capitalism is therefore to flood the country with notes of a high face-value without financial guarantees of any sort.
Already even a hundred-ruble note is almost valueless in Russia. Soon even the simplest peasant will realize that it is only a scrap of paper, not worth more than the rags from which it is manufactured. Men will cease to covet and hoard it so soon as they discover it will not buy anything, and the great illusion of the value and power of money, on which the capitalist state is based will have been definitely destroyed.
This is the real reason why our presses are printing ruble bills day and night, without rest.” lenin
I still can't fathom how the state even has the right to bring a lawsuit over this.
You can have more idea about all this by checking - Mydealway
It should not.
Slick piece of spam there, spammer.
All you have to do is reverse Trump’s tax cuts for the rich. The Washington Post and its commentariat say so.
Actually that would go a long way towards fixing the problem.
No it would not. Ooo math time
Forbes 400 - . They now hold $4.5 trillion in wealth. How much would that fund. One year it you took it all.
Wait, maybe you consider anyone make over 40k rich or something?
20% already pay the majority of taxes. Jack it up more right?
Why do they call it the Forbes 400? Because it is the richest 400 people. The "1%" (those in the top 1% of household income) had $38.7 trillion in net worth as of Q2 of this year. That is higher than what the middle 60% own. ($37.5 trillion). By the way, in the 90s, the top 1% had wealth a little over half of what the middle 60% possessed.
With around 130 million households counted in these figures, that means that ~1.3 million of them are in the top 1%. That's a lot more than the 400 that are on that Forbes list and a lot more wealth.
The supply-side Reaganomics that the GOP has pursued religiously for 40 years is not trickling down wealth, it has been trickling up. In fact, it was Reagan that first started the trend of massive deficit spending by cutting taxes at the same time spending increased. Why have deficit hawks continued to vote Republican when they have followed that plan ever since?
Nevermind. I know the answer to that. The Demoncrats are just that much worse, and ballots only have two options on them in the general election. And you have to vote for incumbents in primaries. It's a rule.
Nepolitano was on a left leaning podcast on illegal immigration. Leftist host was complaining, as they always do, that it’s due to leftist dictatorship countries, without free market capitalism, not having access to free market capitalism/sanctions on the communist dictatorships. Neapolitan stated that what we are seeing now was a welfare state for a world population of 8 billion people and that the federal government would collapse under its own weight.
Social security should give everyone back what they paid in, non adjusted for inflation and end the program. The entire medical industry should be a catastrophic single payer that has a percentage deductible on AGI. AGI should include federal and state cash equivalent welfare or fascist transfers, including state and federal taxpayers funding of apartment rent percentages and public school babysitting costs.
My Companion mother makes 55 bucks an hour on the PC(Personal PC). She has been out of w0rk for quite some time however last month her check was 11,000 bucks only w0rking on the PC(Personal PC) for 9 hours per day.
OPEN>>>>>>bitecoinsallar12.COM
Public school babysitting costs? We now know that you want anyone not rich to be uneducated and unemployable.
That leads to revolutions. There have been public schools in America since the 1630s. Get used to them.
The only thing that surpasses your ignorance about having to *earn* that ‘rich’ is your criminalistic envy in stealing it. Every leftard and their gov-gun acts of theft / criminal minds.
Why do you want to steal my money? "non adjusted for inflation" Kiss off, punk.
Show me where it is your money. Can you withdraw it all? What about invest it somewhere else? Do your kids get it if you die? If it's your money, you can do with it what you want? What if you die at 60, who gets the money?
You gave to the government, and the government kindly gives some (or more) back to you. They can change their mind any day.
You and Charlie must live in the same basement
Well people think CEOs make too much and a company shouldn't have profits. Where did you learn that? "I learned by watching you government!"
Virtue signaling is great (Not saying people here) until it comes for you. Than it's don't touch my stuff!
A shut down isn't a bad thing. Everyday the government is shut down is a day they can't spend the money we don't have.
But they all get their back pay eventually. So no gain.
The ultimate blame rests on the shoulders of the American people. We routinely elect politicians without care for our fiscal situation. Politicians respond to incentives, and voters mostly signal that we won't punish them for poor performance. The alarm is ringing. It's time to wake up, America.
Why elect politicians that will work to resolve our fiscal problems when there are people using the wrong bathrooms!!?!
My most recent pay test was for a 12-hour-per-week internet job for $9,500. For months, my sister's friend has been making an average of 15,000, and she puts in about 20 hours every week. As soon as I gave it a try, I was shocked at how simple it was.
Do this instead————————————>>> https://www.dailypay7.com/
“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”
So supposedly said Mayer Amschel Rothschild