Why do I seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? I don't. I just want us to be a little realistic about what "our" government is doing with the money they took from you, whether you wanted them to or not.
The vast majority of the federal government's spending programs are the results of special interests holding power over key decision makers (i.e. politicians). Do I really think veteran's benefits should be cut? No, I just want a choice. I can donate to Wounded Warriors Project if I want to, but when my income is taken from me, that choice taken from me is made by someone else. There are quite a few federal programs that I do not support on a variety of levels besides the fact that they are paid for with money that was stolen. On my own, I may want some portion of my income to go toward funds for needy students, charities that assisted the disabled and children of single-parent households, or even give to foundations I trust that give research grants to promising scientific ventures.
But I want to pay for those things. I do not want to force you to pay for them if you don't share my sentiment.
On the other side, I do not approve of funding for network surveillance, agricultural subsidies, all of the mind-blowingly insane miscellaneous spending, social security (which I will talk about later), infrastructure, energy subsidies of all types, foreign defense subsidies (i.e. our massive defense budget that spends billions on overseas assets), the department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, and many, many others. Here are some reasons why I do not support these programs:
-Infrastructure constitutes our roads, bridges, airports, sewage systems, water delivery systems, high-tension power lines and substations, and other "integral" parts of our economy and our life. All can and have been provided at a lower cost and a higher quality in the private sector.
-The regulatory departments I mentioned either do not to enough regulation, do too little regulation, or do exactly the amount of regulation that would be paid for and demanded by market entities. The FDA is notoriously lax on it's food regulatory policies, prompting food service providers to hire private organizations to perform health checks on their produce. The EPA tends to over regulate small and mid-sized businesses and under regulates larger businesses. This is usually because of a process known as "regulatory capture."
-The removal of housing, agriculture, and other subsidies needs very little justification. The market demands are certain level at a certain quality of all of these things. We make and receive clothing, cars, and computers on the market at lower and lower prices with higher and higher quality over time. Industries that receive federal (or other government) subsidy tend to have artificially lower prices with stagnant or even diminishing quality over time. There are economic reasons for this, of course. There are also a myriad of unintended and undesirable consequences of subsidies of particular sectors over others, in addition to the fact that taxes must be taken to pay for them and will almost necessarily result in dead-weight loss for consumers (I will explain a little later).
That's all for now. If you want additional information on my reasoning I can provide it.
What does the dog have to do with it?
The dog is Scrooge McDog. He likes putting his money to good use so he is discerning about where it is kept and how to manage it, like most people. The quill pen is the lobbyists who infest DC asking for political favors for certain industries and groups. The stacks of gold represent former Texas congressman Ron Paul and his crusade to cut spending and circulate competing currencies. The candle is what remains of Lady Liberty's torch in the midst of all this epicurean-level spending of other people's stolen money.
