The budget deficit

[leatherneck]

There have been many stories about Homeland Security projects in dusty little out of the way towns that quite frankly don't appear to be serious terror targets. The American Enterprise Institute published a paper in 2004-2005 concluding that "a large portion of homeland security-spending decisions are made on a political basis rather than on a sound cost-benefit analysis, leading to the traditional public choice failures that plague government spending more generally". A 2006 article in the Washington Post reported on a bipartisan Congressional report stating that "since the Homeland Security Department's formation in 2003, an explosion of no-bid deals and a critical shortage of trained government contract managers have created a system prone to abuse." Further, "Based on a comprehensive survey of hundreds of government audits, 32 Homeland Security Department contracts worth a total of $34 billion have "experienced significant overcharges, wasteful spending, or mismanagement"". It has also been reported several times over the past few years that audits have shown widespread abuse of government-issued credit cards for inappropriate purchases by Homeland Security employees.

 

I'd say that between spending money to protect targets that are not likely to be attacked (uneccessary pork), distribution of monies based on political and not protection considerations, and wasteful no-bid spending practices, and improper financial controls on government-issued credit cards, there is probably at least $10 billion per year of needless government spending in this area.

 

We'll assume, for discussion purposes, that you are correct about the dusty little towns. Just how do you think that it happens that money gets directed to those dusty little towns? Of course, we know (quite well as a matter of fact) how it happens. Key members of Congress push and trade their influence to get money for the dusty little towns. How is this waste Bush's fault?

 

And I interpret your comment to mean that the 10B is a SWAG.

[H]

So you are worried about other countries "owning" too much of us, but also worried that other countries will stop buying U.S. Treasury Securities?

 

 

I'm not at all worried about other countries scaling back their purchase of U.S. Treasuries. I think that would be a welcome wakeup call that indefinite deficit spending cannot continue.

[H]

We'll assume, for discussion purposes, that you are correct about the dusty little towns. Just how do you think that it happens that money gets directed to those dusty little towns? Of course, we know (quite well as a matter of fact) how it happens. Key members of Congress push and trade their influence to get money for the dusty little towns. How is this waste Bush's fault?

 

And I interpret your comment to mean that the 10B is a SWAG.

 

The $10 billion is a swag, although not at all an unreasonable one given the copious reporting available on waste and inefficient spending rampant in this organization.

 

I don't really care how excessive, wasteful government spending happens. I don't care about the processes. I don't care about the fact that deals are made to waste our money in exchange for political support for this or that. The bottom line is that the President is supposed to be a competent executive who manages a complex set of responsibilities with acceptable outcomes for our nation. This has not been the case. Bush had a Republican-controlled Congress for his first six years in office and the national debt swelled by about $3 trillion during that time. You may think that half trillion dollar deficits are acceptable. I do not. I'm not willing to give anyone a free pass for tagging my kids with crippling debt because they didn't manage effectively or were undisciplined or both.

[leatherneck]

The $10 billion is a swag, although not at all an unreasonable one given the copious reporting available on waste and inefficient spending rampant in this organization.

 

I don't really care how excessive, wasteful government spending happens. I don't care about the processes. I don't care about the fact that deals are made to waste our money in exchange for political support for this or that. The bottom line is that the President is supposed to be a competent executive who manages a complex set of responsibilities with acceptable outcomes for our nation. This has not been the case. Bush had a Republican-controlled Congress for his first six years in office and the national debt swelled by about $3 trillion during that time. You may think that half trillion dollar deficits are acceptable. I do not. I'm not willing to give anyone a free pass for tagging my kids with crippling debt because they didn't manage effectively or were undisciplined or both.

 

Okay. Well at least I understand the way you "reason".