top of page

801. Wasteful Government Spending


Did you know wasteful spending is built into the chaotic, closed-door way our employees conduct our government business?  Have you ever heard of rollover appropriations?  Government budget directors in various agencies will make sure to spend their entire budget to add credibility to requests for a budget increase, and as a means to argue against budget cuts.  Wasteful rollover-appropriation spending is part of how the taxpayer currently chooses to organize our budgeting: these things are not limited to only certain parts of the bureaucracy.  And it adds up fast.  How hard will it be to trace how much actual inflation is a result of this kind of budgetary inflation?  Everyday Americans who work on budget cycles have experienced these dynamics.  Do thoughtful Americans really think that isn’t and hasn’t been happening all over government, but only in small parts of government?  Some people go as far as saying all of this is normal and ok while denying the other side of the equation.  Attacking the other side’s wealth redistribution policies exclusively will never be a solution.


There is no shortage of waste throughout government.  Various social program qualifications have created a welfare dependency culture that has demonized working families who actually need these programs to feed their kids [only while we are fixing the causes of "serf economics"].  University administrators have given themselves bonuses while charging impoverished students and families a fortune to perpetuate the money-laundering credit-tit.  New and remodeled government buildings are popping up in the place of perfectly fine ones all the time.  Subsidies and grants to foundations and international organizations such as the UN and disaster relief funds are embezzled for private gains and expensive banquets on an increasing scale.  We are the primary subsidizer of the UN, only so its principal bodies can undermine and impede any good work that the organization does.  But does anybody seriously believe that a significantly higher percentage of the waste is limited to the abuse of spending on demand-side economics?  Taxpayers are indirectly subsidizing Walmart, Amazon, and other giant wage-employers everyday through food stamps because they refuse to invest enough profit in adequate compensation.  We are also directly subsidizing the biggest international business buddies of everyone’s favorite politicians just for conducting their normal business: examples like subsidized Monsanto corn in Mexico are endless.  We don't need to jeopardize national security with all of these failing wealth redistribution programs in the first place.  Tracking overall supply-side spending abuse is tricky for similar reasons as with demand-side: the volume of dollars in question, the volume of special interest subsidy laws, systematic errors, insider politicking.  Millions of Americans are receiving tens of thousands of dollars in welfare which adds up after years, and tens of thousands of multibillion dollar businesses are receiving trillions as well.  The nature of business economics does not mean that one can suddenly characterize whether “all businesses” are participating in these wealth-redistribution conflicts of interest or are not.  Obviously, many businesses are, many aren’t, and some have even been caught.  Many of the narrow characterizations I’ve heard from both sides of what is and is not wealth redistribution or what a business is or is not doing behind closed doors are simply impossible to make.  When one tries to breakdown federal spending, both parties can make up their own charts when the truth should not be that hard to find, so I don’t need any charts because I already know that the waste in all parts of the chart need to be cut.


Taxation is wealth redistribution and wealth redistribution is socialism.  Centralism is characterized by state-control and communism is characterized by social programs.  Some people will try to say that socialism is state-controlled industry, but we already had a word for that.  They will argue that socialism is a less extreme form of communism, but why call less extreme forms of command economy something else?  Not enough of the "serious activists" against these authoritarian forms of government feel a need to publish the power in the words for more and less extreme forms of (free market or free trade) capitalism or (republican or civil) democracy.  Something is suspicious when some of the loudest apparent voices against communism knowingly do not want to call it out explicitly, but instead conflate it with an existing, historical term that may even appear friendly and “social” to those who don't know any better.  “Hahahehe, see we’re not communists, we’re on the RED side.”  The inaccurate polarization of key terms is not limited to the ones above.  Google and other mainstream sources define "fascism" as "a right wing ideology that uses violence to take power" even though nothing about using injustice to take power is characteristically right wing.  The term "liberal" is characterized by any form of radical change and the term "conservative" is characterized by the conserving of whatever given established order/status quo.  Democracy is the direct right to vote, and a republic is government justly instituted by the consent of the governed.  One can have "democracy" without a republic like we do, but there cannot be a republic without legitimate democracy.

bottom of page