Showing posts with label budget cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget cuts. Show all posts

Saturday, March 2, 2013

Sequester Blues

So the President has now ordered $85 billion dollars in budget cuts forced by the sequester. He doesn't like it, and blames the GOP for not being willing to compromise. Republicans don't like it, and blame the Democrats who don't want to cut spending. But is it really all that?

What's $85 billion when the deficit is several trillion? Next to nothing, when you think about it for a moment. It should not be that hard to find that relatively paltry amount to reduce spending, especially when spread over the entire federal government. And to those who reject such cuts as a draconian use of the meat cleaver, well, what's wrong with the meat cleaver approach? Surgical budget cuts only mean that everything should be gone over with a fine toothed comb, which only gives entrenched bureaucracies time to legitimize themselves.

Use the meat cleaver, and use it more harshly than what may or may not be happening with the sequester cuts. Why not start by telling every government entity that it will lose ten percent of its budget next year no matter what? Force everyone to cut spending no matter what. Yes, they'll squeal. Yes, the special interest groups who live off government largesse will squeal. But they'd squeal if you cut their budget one small dime; a dollar cut would be treated like the amputation of a limb. Ignore their cries and cut their budget.

$85 billion dollars in spending cuts is nothing. Stop whining about it, and just do it, bureaucrats.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Post Office to Close

The little town of Elwell, Michigan will lose its Post Office. The Postal Regulatory Commission in Washington has voted to not review the town's petition to keep it open. The Elwell Post Office did very little business and only 24 people have post office boxes there. This is a perfect example of where government spending ought to be cut. We can say all we want about the government serving the people, but it's hard to justify spending for so few for so little. Particularly considering that the Elwell Post Office is merely one of hundreds throughout the United States which do little business, it becomes easy to see how much money can be saved through the elimination of such offices. And no, money isn't everything. But the folks who want to keep all the Elwells open like to ignore the fact that it is still something. It is a finite resource, a tool, and like any tool it must be used well in order to gain the most benefit for the most people. After that, when you factor in that it is other people who are supporting the Elwells and have been keeping them afloat for years, well, it sounds rather demanding that every small town in America believes they ought to be subsidized for their own purposes. Yes, the closing may well be a hardship on certain folks. But we've always believed that rural America more than any other part of America has been the quickest to help itself and its neighbors. Rather than bemoan the loss of the the local Post Office, we would be more impressed if the locals rose up to the challenged and did what they could for themselves and their friends. Someone pointed out that Elwell has had a Post Office since the 1880s. Unfortunately longevity is no reason in itself to maintain anything. There has to be more, and that includes need and cost. And the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, generally speaking (there are exceptions, of course). And further, if we are going to get a handle on our spending, well, some folks are subject to be inconvenienced by it, sometimes even for decent enough reasons in themselves. Yet we can't let that keep us from necessary pruning. Indeed, it is the idea that we can't cut anything which has led us to our current predicament in Washington. Do we really want to continue down that road? If we do, it won't be merely our postal service which is threatened. It will be our national defense, our local police and fire protection, and all the way down to our garbage pickup. All because we would refuse to make the small but necessary budget cuts. It's okay to be sentimental. It's okay, even morally decent, to feel bad for those who are hurt by the process. But that cannot keep us from doing what we must to forestall even worse calamities for even greater numbers of people. Trying to be everything for everybody only hurts, well, everybody. it is no way to run a postal service, let alone a government.