Libertarianism 101: Cutting the Pork to the Bone

Editor's Note: This post was originally published in 2007. As such, some of the data is dated.

The Federal Government spends a hell of a lot of money. For fiscal year 2006, the President's budget requested almost $2.6 TRILLION dollars (T$)! With an estimated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $12.9 T$, the Federal Government contributes nearly 20% towards the total GDP. Of this $2.6 T$, $922 billion of it (that's just over 1/3) is for what is called "Discretionary" spending. This means the government is not required, by law, to expend this money. This includes money for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Transportation, Treasury, Commerce, Energy, Labor, Justice, etc., etc. The remainder, or about $1.4 T$, is for so-called "Mandatory" spending. This includes Social Security ($540B), Medicare ($340B), and Medicaid ($199B), among Other ($331B) things.

Wow! That's a lot of money. And this is just what President Bush is REQUESTING. Congress usually spends more.

If you remove the programs that I consider to be things the federal government should not be spending money on - charity, business subsidies, arts endowments, social security, health care - and eliminated projects that were completely local in scope, I imagine the federal budget would be about 30% of what it is today. And that doesn't include other services that one could argue belong at the local level, such as Education. And what's worse, in my mind, is the government isn't very efficient with its spending. It wastes hundred of millions of dollars each and every year. In many cases, it's encouraged to waste money. For those of us who either are or used to be federal employees or have been contractors to government organizations, what happens during the last quarter of any fiscal year? Gotta spend our money! If we don't spend it all, we won't get as much next year! What do they spend it on? Anything and everything. New computers they don't need, fancy office furniture, picnics, off-site employee development seminars, travel to optimal resort locations for conferences, ... the list goes on and on. And it's not as though there aren't multitudes of government reports investigating this waste. Every Congressional member should be well informed and should, one would hope, want to do something about it. But they don't.

And it doesn't really seem to matter what political party is in power. Democrats always spend and then spend some more. And Republicans, even though they claim to be fiscal conservatives, have continued to increase government spending on massive education and health care programs - programs, one could argue, in which the federal government should have no involvement!

At one point a couple of years ago, President Bush requested that each department head come up with 1% in savings. One percent! One penny on the dollar. And guess what, they couldn't ... every dollar they received was just so critical that it couldn't be given up. The response of the department heads prodded then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to quip, rather tongue-in-cheek I believe, that the budget was as trim as it could be (and I'm paraphrasing here)!

And Republicans, and I think Democrats, too, have realized that a great way to get more money to spend is to cut taxes. The tax cuts of 1964, 1986, and 2001 have all resulted in increased revenues to the federal government. The Republicans support this by saying it will put more money in your pocket. The Democrats oppose it so they can pander to those who don't even pay any taxes. But both parties know it will give them more money to spend.

My local paper, the Winchester Star had a recent editorial on all of the "Bacon" our Congressional representative, Frank Wolf, is bringing home to his district. It cites a number of funded projects to support "... local tourism initiatives, local and regional museums, [and] local community centers ..." and ponders "Should the federal government even be involved in these endeavors?" I, for one, believe the answer to this question should not only be "NO" but "HELL, NO!"

So, what do we do about it? What CAN we do about it? Congressional districts have been gerrymandered in such a way that House incumbents rarely lose. And Senators never seem to want to cut spending of any sort, even when the House of Representatives identifies areas in which cuts can be made. So, what's one to do?

Obviously, getting folks into power who believe in a smaller, more limited federal government would be the ideal solution. Senators like Tom Coburn of Oklahoma have publicly disagreed and voted against wasteful government spending. But when you're only 1 of 4 against 84, can it really make a difference?

It would also be nice to have a President who has the backbone to curtail spending. President Bush didn't veto a single bill in his first 5 years in office ... not one! Given his inability to seek re-election, isn't this the prime time for him to pick up the veto pen and slash this wasteful spending? He has a majority in both Houses of Congress. If not now, when?

It won't be until the American people, as a whole, start telling their representatives what they must do with regards to spending that changes will happen. Make the representatives and candidates respond to your inquiries. Make the sacrifice of foregoing pork at home in order to stop pork in other districts and throw the bums out of office if they don't comply. If you don't think this is an issue, just check out some of these links on how your elected representatives are spending YOUR money.

• Top 10 Examples of Government Waste


• Ready for Reconciliation: The Top Five Items No Fiscal Conservative Could Possibly Support


• 2005 Congressional Pig Book Summary


• Drunk With Power, Spending Out of Control


• Katrina and Pork


• Pork: Your Tax Dollars at Work