During Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends Sunday,” Fox Business Network anchor Maria Bartiromo called it “mind-boggling” that there is a $47 trillion budget but no money readily available to be spent on building the United States-Mexico border wall. “[I]t’s perfectly natural to think that OK, if it hasn’t been used, this money is sitting there maybe we can clawback $15 billion, and again, the president is saying that he is willing to go to bat even though it’s very close to the mid-term elections, by the way, to shut down this government until this funding is done,” Bartiromo said. “It is a little mind-boggling that you have a $47 trillion budget over 10 years and you can’t find $25 billion for the wall for that.”
Maria is exactly right! With all of the trillions and trillions of federal government waste of our hard earned tax dollars, and they can’t cough up enough (with GOP control of both chambers of Congress, no less) money for a wall to secure our border…which would help to stem the tide of illegal aliens and drugs and so on…which cost us billions and billions each year.. It’s beyond ridiculous. Thanks Maria!! 🙂
Real per capita federal spending has increased more than sevenfold since fiscal 1941, which concluded on June 30 of that year — or about five months before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. In fiscal 1941, real per capita federal spending was approximately $1,718. In fiscal 2017, which concluded at the end of September, it was about $12,239. Back in 1941, at the beginning of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s unprecedented third presidential term, the federal government spent $13,653,000,000, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. Although that was a massive increase from the $4,598,000,000 the federal government had spent in 1933, when Roosevelt first took office, it was a pittance compared to what it would spend in the years to come. The national population was about 133,402,471 in 1941, according to the Census Bureau, which means the approximately $13,653,000,000 shoveled out by the Treasury that year equaled $102.34 per capita. Converted into September 2017 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, that equals $1,718.33 in real per capita federal spending. Over the next four years, as the United States fought a world war in both Europe and the Pacific, real per capita spending understandably escalated. In fiscal 1945, at the height of the war, federal spending hit $92,712,000,000 while the national population reached 139,928,165. Per capita spending that year was $662.57 or $9,035.08 in 2017 dollars. Federal spending initially tailed off after the war, but it did not return to prewar levels. By fiscal 1948, it was down to $29,764,000,000. With the population at 146,631,302, that equaled about $202.99 in per capita spending or $2,078.91 in 2017 dollars. That $2,078.91 in real per capita spending in fiscal 1948 was still $360.58 (or about 21 percent) higher than the real per capita spending of $1,718.33 in fiscal 1941. In fiscal 2017, the federal government spent $3,982,000,000,000, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s Monthly Budget Review. With the Census Bureau estimating that the population was 325,344,115 as of July, that makes per capita federal spending in fiscal 2017 about $12,239.35. That is $3,204.27 (or about 35 percent) higher than the $9,035.08 in real per capita spending in fiscal 1945 — at the height of World War II. It is more than seven times greater than the $1,718.33 in real per capita spending the federal government did in fiscal 1941 — the last fiscal year before World War II. Measured against the population of the country, the federal government is now seven times bigger than it was when FDR started his third term. Is it seven times better? What are Americans getting for this massive increase in the federal government?
Some really good questions… To read the answer to those questions, and the rest of the article, click on the text above. Our federal government is WAY too big and out of control. We need to demand from our federally elected officials that they reduce the size and scope of the federal government, and return to a more “limited government.” Of course, one way to do that is to make massive tax cuts. After all, the money we send to Washington, D.C. is their source of power….over us. So, next time there is an election, vote for that candidate who will cut your taxes the most.
Kentucky Republican congressman Hal Rogers, who has spent more than three decades on the House Appropriations Committee, including six years as the chairman, rejected President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget as Congress begins consideration of the president’s rearrangement of priorities. “While we have a responsibility to reduce our federal deficit, I am disappointed that many of the reductions and eliminations proposed in the President’s skinny budget are draconian, careless and counterproductive,” said Rogers, one of the so-called “cardinals,” the nickname for the lawmakers controlling how federal money is spent. Rogers said he was concerned about cuts to programs in Kentucky. “In particular, the Appalachian Regional Commission has a long-standing history of bipartisan support in Congress because of its proven ability to help reduce poverty rates and extend basic necessities to communities across the Appalachian region,” he said. “Today, nearly everyone in the region has access to clean water and sewer, the workforce is diversifying, educational opportunities are improving, and rural technology is finally advancing to 21st Century standards. “We will certainly review this budget proposal, but Congress ultimately has the power of the purse. As the full budget picture emerges in the coming weeks, I am optimistic that we can work with the Administration to responsibly fund the federal government, including those agencies which serve as vital economic lifelines in rural parts of the country that are still working to overcome substantial challenges. Another top House Republican and the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Mike Conaway, took shots at the president’s cuts to the agriculture programs. “At first blush, I am pleased that the administration is working to restore the strength of our nation’s armed forces to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the equipment that they need to defend our country and our interests around the world,” said Conaway, a Texas Republican who also sits on both the Intelligence and Armed Services Committee. “On the USDA budget, I am concerned that the cuts, while relatively small in the context of the total federal budget, could hamper some vital work of the department,” he said. “I think it is very important to remember that net farm income is down 50 percent from where it stood just four years ago. America’s farmers and ranchers are struggling, and we need to be extremely careful not to exacerbate these conditions. In fact, we need to do all we can to be there to help our farmers and ranchers. The work they do is critical. “I think it is very important to remember that net farm income is down 50 percent from where it stood just four years ago. America’s farmers and ranchers are struggling, and we need to be extremely careful not to exacerbate these conditions. In fact, we need to do all we can to be there to help our farmers and ranchers.” Another Republican taking on the president’s budget cuts is Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio). “The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has been a critical tool in our efforts to help protect and restore Lake Erie, and when the Obama administration proposed cuts to the program, I helped lead the effort to restore full funding,” he said. “I have long championed this program, and I’m committed to continuing to do everything I can to protect and preserve Lake Erie, including preserving this critical program and its funding.” When he announced the president’s budget, Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, explained that his budget request was based on Trump’s own speeches and campaign promises. “Knowing what you know about the President, you could imagine what that budget would look like before you even see it..”
Indeed! It’s disappointing to see SO many Republicans like these otherwise quality legislators giving in to their inner-liberal, knee-jerk need to give their respective districts the pork they’ve been so used to giving them…in order to buy their votes. The size and scope of the federal government has progressively grown for decades. And, now, we actually have a President who wants to trim the fraud, abuse, and waste of federal taxpayer dollars from the federal budget, just as he promised he would. As Mr. Mulvaney rightly suggests, this should be NO surprise to anyone. This is just Trump keeping another one of his promises; in this case, to “drain the swamp.” To read the rest of this article, click on the text above.