How many times have we heard that at DU as justification for whatever absurd legislative / regulatory gimmick? It has been used to justify "green energy" (apparently the energy exerted to shift large sums of public money from the government to select constituencies) to nationalized health care to rules that crush domestic energy production while paying despotic regimes that have no such rules to banning toys in Happy MealsTM.
Well, last I checked, the US federal budget was $3.2TN annually set against a $13TN annual GDP with $1.7TN of that spending being straight deficits. That is straining the historical 19% limit of GDP that can be consumed in marginal tax rates before a nation's economy stagnates and buckles.
Defense spending, at its height of fighting 2 protracted regional wars, takes roughly 25% of that. National infrastructure (not to be confused with state and local), the USPS etc run about another 10 to 15% depending on who does the categorization. That means easily 60% of our ruinous spending falls outside of the federal government's constitutionally mandated / authorized purview, this is stunning considering that deficit spending is roughly only 40% of that spending. In other words, get rid of the crap the feds have no business writing a check for and not only do you get rid of the deficit you would have a surplus and be be well under the 19% of GDP taxation limit.
One might argue that once we were under that 19% limit the economy would be so robust as to obviate the need for all those government services that are supposedly required to protect against economic misfortunes.
But here's the thing: whenever we're told "because the potential cost to society are too high it must be regulated" why does no one ever use this phrase with social welfare? From what I've seen this multi-trillion dollar a year industry is all but unregulated (like abortion. the other sacred liberal rite. Go figure). No one really sends inspectors around to this receiving federal stipends to see how the money is being used. There's no demand for accounting such as transaction receipts. There are no community service standards, i.e. if 2 mothers are unemployed one must provide daycare for the other to find and hold a job.
Why is this?
We already know the cost to society: it's bankrupting us. If we wholly disarmed the military overnight stipends to the unproductive and regulations on the productive would still crush us economically. If society must pay for the productive why can't we demand something in return for our payments? If we accept a limit on the productive why can we not demand an assessment or accounting of that limitation to determine if it is worth our while? Why can we not regulate those who are manifestly destroying our economy and with it our society?
I'd love a lurker to illuminate this subject for us.
