The Unmentioned Significance of Recent GSA Shenanigans

The wanton waste of taxpayer dollars for folly and fraudulent cronyism profit has been going on for decades.  That won't change much, regardless of who is at the wheel.  Who doesn't remember a time when stories such as the military buying $2,300 toilets were commonplace, regardless of who was president?

When President Obama took office, he promised to create sweeping changes in the federal government that would cut costs and make us more efficient.  From About.com: "But I will also go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less, because we cannot meet 21st-century challenges with a 20th-century bureaucracy."

He would investigate the far-reaching corners of the federal government and make us lean and mean.  Likewise, these promises were part of Obamacare's commitment to reduce the cost of health care: "My plan invests in eliminating waste in our health care system..."  That, of course, has already proven to be a joke.

Apparently the GSA spending jaunts have been going on for quite some time.  What happened to Obama's team finding this out and stopping it?

I'm not blaming Obama for the GSA's recent frolicking -- as stated, it's been going on for some time, and through all branches of government.  But what Obama has proven here is neither he nor anyone else is capable of cutting the waste that occurs in governmental operations, and to simply say a federal program will be paid for by cutting costs is like saying you have a plan to lower your golf score by simply sinking all your 65-foot putts.

Yet every time any government agency from the city of Bell, CA to the federal government is exposed for wasting taxpayer dollars, it's treated by the media as an anomaly.  Instead, these incidents should be highlighted as examples of how government wastes our money on a daily basis.

The only real way to improve government efficiency is to reduce government itself.  Cut, cut, cut.  If a department doesn't exist, it can't spend money.  If it does exist but is underfunded, it is way less likely to go to Hawaii for a ribbon-cutting because someone would have to be fired to pay for the trip.

Now, while acknowledging that all governments work in wasteful fashion, it follows that the bigger the government, the bigger the waste.  I suspect that the amount of waste increases geometrically, as opposed to straight-line increases as governments expand, since the occurrences of overlapping and competing agencies increases.  It also follows that Obama, by attempting to expand the federal government at every turn, is increasing government waste, virtually by definition.  And, given his large support from government employees, it's also politically expedient for him to expand government to bring more disciples under his influence and control.  And let's not forget the political contributions he receives from government employees and companies who benefit from big government.

This is all obvious, of course -- at least to conservatives.  However, the left doesn't understand "obvious," and moderates tend to ignore it.  Thus our dilemma.  When discussing ObamaCare with a friend of mine, I explained all this.  He responded that ObamaCare was a good place to start, and any problems would be addressed and fixed.  This has never happened, but he sincerely believes it!

And soon he will be making all his 65-foot putts.

The wanton waste of taxpayer dollars for folly and fraudulent cronyism profit has been going on for decades.  That won't change much, regardless of who is at the wheel.  Who doesn't remember a time when stories such as the military buying $2,300 toilets were commonplace, regardless of who was president?

When President Obama took office, he promised to create sweeping changes in the federal government that would cut costs and make us more efficient.  From About.com: "But I will also go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less, because we cannot meet 21st-century challenges with a 20th-century bureaucracy."

He would investigate the far-reaching corners of the federal government and make us lean and mean.  Likewise, these promises were part of Obamacare's commitment to reduce the cost of health care: "My plan invests in eliminating waste in our health care system..."  That, of course, has already proven to be a joke.

Apparently the GSA spending jaunts have been going on for quite some time.  What happened to Obama's team finding this out and stopping it?

I'm not blaming Obama for the GSA's recent frolicking -- as stated, it's been going on for some time, and through all branches of government.  But what Obama has proven here is neither he nor anyone else is capable of cutting the waste that occurs in governmental operations, and to simply say a federal program will be paid for by cutting costs is like saying you have a plan to lower your golf score by simply sinking all your 65-foot putts.

Yet every time any government agency from the city of Bell, CA to the federal government is exposed for wasting taxpayer dollars, it's treated by the media as an anomaly.  Instead, these incidents should be highlighted as examples of how government wastes our money on a daily basis.

The only real way to improve government efficiency is to reduce government itself.  Cut, cut, cut.  If a department doesn't exist, it can't spend money.  If it does exist but is underfunded, it is way less likely to go to Hawaii for a ribbon-cutting because someone would have to be fired to pay for the trip.

Now, while acknowledging that all governments work in wasteful fashion, it follows that the bigger the government, the bigger the waste.  I suspect that the amount of waste increases geometrically, as opposed to straight-line increases as governments expand, since the occurrences of overlapping and competing agencies increases.  It also follows that Obama, by attempting to expand the federal government at every turn, is increasing government waste, virtually by definition.  And, given his large support from government employees, it's also politically expedient for him to expand government to bring more disciples under his influence and control.  And let's not forget the political contributions he receives from government employees and companies who benefit from big government.

This is all obvious, of course -- at least to conservatives.  However, the left doesn't understand "obvious," and moderates tend to ignore it.  Thus our dilemma.  When discussing ObamaCare with a friend of mine, I explained all this.  He responded that ObamaCare was a good place to start, and any problems would be addressed and fixed.  This has never happened, but he sincerely believes it!

And soon he will be making all his 65-foot putts.

RECENT VIDEOS