Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, arrives for votes on amendments to advance the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2021. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
My dad had an appointment last week in Coralville. I tagged along from Cedar Rapids so that I could meet one of my employees while I was there. For the last three months, I’ve been working for the federal government as a supervisor on a temporary project. It involves regularly receiving hard copies of casework from employees as far as 120 miles away. Those employees are paid time and mileage to transport them to me for same-day processing.
The employee bringing paperwork that day was from Davenport. Meeting her in Coralville instead of Cedar Rapids saved about $65 in wages and mileage. I’d like to say I hitched a ride to save the taxpayers some cash, and there is truth to that. But my real reason? I’ve become so disenchanted about how government functions that finding cheaper ways to get the job done seemed like some little act of rebellion. It was my way of thumbing my nose at the bureaucrats who will absolutely find other ways to spend those 65 bucks (and subsequently request more money in next year’s budget.)
I’m hardly alone in my disgust with how the government spends money. People work hard to support themselves. Many cringe at the sums deducted from our paychecks for taxes. No one should expect that we’ll be delighted when the federal government decides that they need to spend a 13-figure sum of money to do some super-important stuff that the first $6.55 trillion in the federal budget apparently didn’t cover.
That’s exactly what they did, though. Last Tuesday, the U.S. Senate secured passage of a $1 trillion “hard” infrastructure bill, helped along with an “aye” from Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley. Sen. Joni Ernst voted no.
Less than 24 hours after passing their “bipartisan” spending bill, the Senate turned around and passed a resolution calling for even more spending — about $3.5 trillion more. That was not at all a bipartisan effort. Every single Republican voted no, including Grassley, who, although obviously capable of letting us down on occasion, hasn’t (completely) abandoned the taxpayer. The second bill passed only with a tiebreaking vote from Vice President Kamala Harris.
With the framework for the second spending bill in place, Democrats can now start drafting formal plans to spend $3.5 trillion dollars of money that we don’t have and do it with only a simple majority. Our government wants to spend money like we have it.
But we don’t have it. Not enough to satisfy the wants of these bills, anyway. The budget plan released in May by the White House proposed a federal budget of $6.011 trillion for the fiscal year 2022, which begins on Oct. 1. Despite that price tag, the government only expects to take in $4.174 trillion in revenue.
That creates a budget deficit of $1.837 trillion. When there’s a budget deficit, the government borrows money to cover it, which affects the national debt. Currently, the national debt is about $28.6 trillion.
These numbers can be a bit bewildering, but I’d be lying if I said they were shocking. Many of us, myself included, have grown used to the idea that government spending is out of control, and has been for a long time. In the last 52 years, the U.S. has had a budget surplus for only five of them, the last being over two decades ago.
The spending is out of control because we allow it. The infrastructure bill is a perfect example of how. “Infrastructure” is a beguiling word. It deceives us into giving politicians the OK to spend gobs of money on the promise of things like new roads and better bridges. Want for all of that blurs the line between the Democratic and Republican parties, one of which supposedly opposes reckless spending in favor of fiscal conservatism. (Or so it claims.)
To be fair, I like many of the things that Grassley touted when explaining his vote for the “hard” infrastructure bill. I like smooth highways. I really like sturdy bridges. I like strong broadband, efficient drainage systems, and accessible airports, all of which he cited in his news release, which lead with the headline “Grassley Votes to Invest in Iowa’s Future.”
I just can’t figure out why, given that infrastructure is so vital to our country’s ability to prosper, we have to wait to address those needs in extra spending bills.
Were none of those needs able to be addressed in the almost $1.5 trillion discretionary spending that had already been requested in this year’s budget? Are there no other jurisdictions, like state, county, or municipal governments, that bear responsibility for local infrastructure?
That’s what I dislike: The allure of “investments in infrastructure” being dangled like a carrot to taxpayers to get them to go along with bloated spending, much of which funds pet projects that tend to politically benefit individual politicians. Many of those pet projects also reap personal financial gains for those politicians and their families and friends, a disgusting concept known as “crony capitalism.”
What I dislike most, though, is that citizens tend to take the bait every time. I’ve witnessed it over and over in conversations with constituents throughout my work in legislative advocacy over the years. Even among the seemingly most ardent opponents of wasteful spending are those who will say, “Well, if it means better roads and bridges, I’d be all right with that.”
It’s a vicious cycle. The taxpayer has become so accustomed to reckless spending that it’s easy to let the government continue it, and the government has become so accustomed to taxpayers letting them that it’s easy to spend recklessly.
One bright spot in this whole expensive mess is that the House has yet to approve either of these bills, including the $3.5 trillion monstrosity. Moderate Democrats in vulnerable districts, such as Rep. Cindy Axne in IA-03, might not be so quick to sign off on this latest spending spree if their constituents make it clear to them how unforgiving they would be of that vote.
And it really is just the latest spending spree. Of course there will be more in the future. Despite rapid and considerable changes America has undergone in the last eighteen months, we’re learning — the hard way — that some things never change. Especially if we never expect them to.
Althea Cole is Gazette editorial fellow. Comments: althea.cole@thegazette.com
"allow" - Google News
August 15, 2021 at 07:30PM
https://ift.tt/3sk8nJo
Federal spending is out of control because we allow it - The Gazette
"allow" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KTEV8j
https://ift.tt/2Wp5bNh
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Federal spending is out of control because we allow it - The Gazette"
Post a Comment