Posted by Karl Denninger
I generally like Alan so I was stunned to see this bit of pandering – although perhaps I shouldn’t be, given that it’s election season and every one of the critters in Congress is trying desperately to justify their salaries.
5 minutes of worthwhile video, but….. (you knew there would be a “but”, right?)
Yes, we could cut the separate funding for Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course we would then have the troops here, which still results in them being paid salaries, right?
The cost of a war isn’t just fuel for planes, bombs to drop and bullets to shoot. It is also salaries for our soldiers, salaries for the development of weapons, salaries for places like Eglin and other bases. If the total spent goes down that support to the economy goes down too.
You won’t see me argue for greater federal spending in the general sense. But I will argue that until and unless you deal with the energy situation and our 40 years of stupidity in that regard walking away from the sources of our nation’s energy isn’t exactly smart.
Worse, however, Alan Grayson wants to give 90% of the money he would “save” through this move to “the people”, thereby not actually withdrawing the deficit spending (which we should do), but instead shifting it.
$16 billion of “deficit reduction”, so he claims. But he’s not mentioning the $1.6 trillion in deficit that we have.
Cutting $160 billion wouldn’t be all that bad of an idea – that would be 10% of the deficit, and might actually matter. Indeed, it would be what I’d call “a good start.”
That’s pissing into a hurricane.
Nice try at populism draped in a false cloak of “fiscal responsibility” Alan.
It’s unfortunate that “on the numbers” your bill displays an IQ smaller than your shoe size.