|
Do you need to buy a birthday, anniversary or holiday gift? Visit the Galleria! February 2, 2003 What is the deal with the State of the Union? By Jan A. Larson President Bush delivered his annual State of the Union address last week with much attention focused on his comments about domestic issues and the economy in addition to his comments regarding the potential for war with Iraq. I am a supporter of the President and favor of ousting Saddam Hussein from power now as opposed to taking a “head in the sand” approach favored by some. However, the war in Iraq is a subject for another column. Instead, I am going to focus on the President’s comments on subjects other than Iraq. The first thing that struck me in the address was the tremendous amount of spending that the President said would be in the budget that he will soon submit to Congress. It seems that even a Republican President has no trouble spending ever-increasing amounts of your and my money. This is especially troubling in light of the state of the economy and the likelihood of war. As is the case with many individual Americans, the economic recession has had a devastating effect on many state budgets. Unlike the federal government, states governments must balance their budgets. As a result of decreasing revenues, states all across the nation are cutting spending. Some of those cuts are painful, but I believe many of the things being cut are extraneous expenditures for things that shouldn’t be funded by government in the first place. The federal government, on the other hand, has no mandate to balance the budget. When times get tight, there seems to be no reason to cut back, just run a deficit instead. The President’s address included a statement that discretionary spending would be budgeted for a four percent increase, “about as much as the average family’s income is expected to grow.” Well, maybe you can expect a four percent raise if you have a job, but unemployment is relatively high right now so I don’t expect the unemployed to see a four percent raise. Why must government spending grow? In times of tight money, it is time for the federal government to tighten its belt too. I would have given the President very high praise indeed if he had committed to hold the line on discretionary spending if not an outright cut. Another troubling budget issue was the $15 billion (with a “b”) that the President committed to fighting AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean. This is three times the amount that the United States is currently spending for this cause. Some experts have said that even $15 billion won’t be enough to stop the suffering. Now don’t get me wrong. I sympathize with the plight of the poor people in Africa afflicted with this terrible disease. People in many African countries are destined to lead short, painful lives with little hope for anything more than a day-to-day existence. Those that do survive to adulthood will simply bring more children into the world to lead similar hopeless lives. The solution to the AIDS crisis is not easy, simple or cheap. While I’m sure all Americans share in the desire to help the afflicted, is spending an additional $10 billion going to really make a difference or would that money be better spent shoring up our porous borders or providing for prescription drugs for seniors or shoring up the social security system or, best of all, being put back into the pockets of the American taxpayers? I personally do not believe it is our government’s place to be increasing spending overseas, no matter how worthy the cause, when we have, by some estimates, over 1000 illegal immigrants pouring across our borders each day. Of those 1000, just how many are terrorists? If it were even just 1/10 of 1%, we would have nearly 500 new terrorists since September 11, 2001 on American soil right now. The AIDS epidemic may be something that the President holds dear to his heart. I don’t know, but we can’t afford to be spreading ourselves thin in difficult times. If our borders were secure, our economy strong and our retirement years assured, then by all means let’s try to help those around the world improve their lot in life, but until then the role of the United States government is to protect and provide for the citizens of the United States, not Botswana, Rwanda and Zambia. -- Send feedback to the author. The "What is the Deal?" column will appears weekly on the Pie of Knowledge website. Guest submissions are welcome and encouraged. To submit an article to "What is the Deal?" click here. To subscribe to the "What is the Deal?" mailing list and receive early notification when a new column is available, click here. The Pie of Knowledge will never, ever divulge email addresses to any third party for any reason unless so ordered by a court of law. Contributions to the Pie of Knowledge are greatly appreciated. 
|
