Shouldn’t the government keep from spending so much that it endangers national sovereignty and security, or at least something akin to it? It would be an understatement to say this is rather important. Yet, the question is unnecessarily raised repeatedly.

Why can’t government grasp the concept of budget cuts? I’m not talking about spending less, as in only $999 billion of a $1 trillion proposal. I mean, spend less than we did in last year’s budget. It seems government is perpetually playing a game of “we can fool the people by calling it ‘less,’ when it’s really just not as much as we originally stated.”

Government cannot be everything for everybody; there are many areas in which to lower the budget. For instance, the recent financing of a third engine of a two-engine fighter plane. Pure pork! Outrageous! This was nothing short of vote-buying by an elected official and had nothing to do with military needs.

Or we could cut or eliminate foreign aid. Why give money to countries that hate us? They can hate us equally well without it. We give foreign aid or have military presence in 150 out of 190 or so countries in the world. Let that one sink in a bit.

Why should we give subsidies to some companies? If a company cannot sell its product, then it deserves to go under. It’s called the free market.

Here’s the best example: Look up the Depression of 1920-21. Never heard of it? That’s because the nation came out of it relatively quickly, with the result being the Roaring 20s. How?

Government cut spending (including its own pay), then lowered taxes. Perhaps our current leaders need a history lesson. Yes, sometimes doing less is more.

Greg Paquet

Smithfield


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.