I have tried very hard to not write too often about my continuing disagreements with president Obama, as that was something that annoyed me to death during W’s presidency when he couldn’t sneeze without people hating him for it. So I have sat on my hands while I daily read stuff that does perk my interest, but that I don’t think deserves a report from me.
But here’s one that I think is both funny and disturbing at the same time. It has been in the news for a few days that Obama was going to cut $100 million from his budget. You think, “Wow, he’s really got this deficit in his cross hairs!” But you would be wrong. As George Will points out that:
…$100 million, which is about 13 minutes of federal spending, and 0.0029 percent — about a quarter of one-hundredth of 1 percent — of $3.5 trillion.
So now you think, “By Grabthar’s hammer…. what a savings.” [anyone, anyone?]
How much is a zillion dollars?
Would you agree, that this is laughable and disturbing simultaneously? It’s probably not even worth the time of the cabinet to find the $100 million to save, since it amounts to so little. Will goes on to point out that Obama is also going to “save” $15 million by shutting down a program (which is very popular, and considered successful) in Washington, D.C. that was basically a voucher system to get black and hispanic students out of poorly performing public schools. Will sees this as a direct pandering to teacher unions who hate vouchers, and who donated significantly to Obama’s campaign – and I agree with Will.
I feel like for some reason American’s have lost all perspective about money. We each can struggle individually with coming up with a few thousand dollars to pay for our lives, and yet shrug off the fact that $100 million has become less than pocket change to our national government. Isn’t that a sign that we have, 1) allowed our gov’t to grow too large, and 2) lost the sense of the value of things when money is placed in the hands of others?
MARK ADDS: Reader Tim had a link to a post with a great image from The Heritage Foundation demonstrating the significance of cutting $100 million.
Josh
Elijah
Greg
Michael
Mark
Dude Man
Brian Reidl at The Corner had this remark, which I thought was well said:
So why bother? Because it may enhance the president’s “budget-cutter” image. Seriously. President Obama has reportedly been working closely with noted behavioral economists, and their studies have shown that most people are “insensitive to scope,” meaning they are not very good at putting large numbers in their proper context.
I also agree that there is a problem that a $100 million savings seems like a waste of time to even read about. Makes my little discovery of the $40 hiding in my coat pocket the other day seem insignificant indeed.
Here’s another good post on the subject.
I heard Hugh Hewitt talking about the graphic from the Heritage Foundation, but had not had a chance to look at it, so thanks for putting it up. Needless to say, I agree with Mark and Tim here. I don’t mind the idea of making small cuts where possible, but I don’t like the arbitrary nature of it. He’s not cutting a program that doesn’t work, he’s cutting an arbitrary amount that sounds like a lot but actually is not, with no real clear explanation as to what’s driving it. To paraphrase something I heard on the radio, it’s like buying a $50,000 car, then feeling a little guilty that you’ve been so indulgent and deciding to cut out a cup holder or two to save $150. If he’s going to choose an arbitrary amount to cut, why not choose $1 billion, or $10 billion for that matter?
Galaxy Quest.
Excellent work Alex.
I heard that Obama has spent a Billion Dollars an Hour since he took office. I was one of those who criticized bush for being a big spender starting with No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug Benefit, both of which are huge government boondoggles, but Obama is making Bush look like a piker.
Is it too late to save America from the ignorant, well meaning masses who want to rob from the productive to give to those in need?
I can’t decide if it’s better to plan a move to New Hamshire to try to fight the beast from within (Check out http://www.freestateproject.org/ for more details), to start looking for liberty in another country, to just stay here in the socialist paradise of Southern California and fight the seemingly futile battle to change our culture, or to sit back and watch the system implode like the Industrialists in Atlas Shrugged.
Anyone interested in a poll?