In recent days, much has been said about the terrible consequences of cutting federal government spending through sequestration. The media has made it clear that America will see all manner of horrors if these cuts actually go through. I believe, however, that they have not done an accurate job explaining the importance of government spending, so I am going to give it a go here.
First of all, the two main goals of government spending ought to be to keep the country safe and to give each of us the ability to enjoy our lives. Certainly, these aims can be broken down into smaller pieces, but no reasonable person could question these goals. As a result, I think it is most instructive to look at how the USA has fared in meeting these goals in the modern age of government spending. To be precise, I think that we need to look at just how well America has done since the late 1960's after the big increase in spending on Great Society domestic programs took federal spending to new levels. This review gives us a pretty good indicator for determining the efficacy of government spending.
Here are the facts:
1) In 1969, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 12% of the American population lived in poverty.
2) In 2011, after more than 40 years of heavy spending by the federal government on social programs designed to eradicate poverty, the same Census Bureau put the number of folks living in poverty at about 15.7% of the population. It is important to note that in 2011, there were something like 12 million illegal aliens who also lived in America and that a much higher percentage of these folks lived below the poverty level. Since the illegals are not included in the Census figures, the actual poverty rate across the country was probably in excess of 17%.
3) In 1969, the USA spent 8.3% of its gross domestic product on military expenditures. In 2011, America spent only 4.5% of the GDP on the military. That means that about 3.8% of the GDP was freed up by the cut in military spending.
4) In 1969, domestic spending by the federal government was just under 11% of the GDP. In 2011, domestic spending was just about 20% of GDP. So, the level of spending came close to doubling in 42 years.
5) In 2010, according to an official report of the USDA, 14.5% of American households were "food insecure"; in other words, these are homes in which the residents had difficulty getting enough to eat even after programs like food stamps are considered. Again, this study ignores the hidden millions of impoverished illegal aliens, so the figure is probably closer to 16%.
6) In 1969, hunger in America was so extensive that then president Richard Nixon began a special initiative for the government to wipe out hunger. According to the government of that day, 16% of Americans were "hungry", the 1969 term for being "food insecure".
Just looking at these facts make clear the true value of the vast government expenditures on social programs. In the last 42 years, domestic spending has nearly doubled. During that same time, the percentage of folks living in poverty has increased by about 40%, and the percentage who live in hunger is essentially unchanged. America has spent many trillions of dollars only to see poverty rise drastically and hunger remain unchanged.
If there is anyone who actually believes that cutting government spending will truly hurt the country, I suggest that we get that person's name so that it can be added to the list of the mentally ill who ought not be allowed to buy guns.
First of all, the two main goals of government spending ought to be to keep the country safe and to give each of us the ability to enjoy our lives. Certainly, these aims can be broken down into smaller pieces, but no reasonable person could question these goals. As a result, I think it is most instructive to look at how the USA has fared in meeting these goals in the modern age of government spending. To be precise, I think that we need to look at just how well America has done since the late 1960's after the big increase in spending on Great Society domestic programs took federal spending to new levels. This review gives us a pretty good indicator for determining the efficacy of government spending.
Here are the facts:
1) In 1969, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 12% of the American population lived in poverty.
2) In 2011, after more than 40 years of heavy spending by the federal government on social programs designed to eradicate poverty, the same Census Bureau put the number of folks living in poverty at about 15.7% of the population. It is important to note that in 2011, there were something like 12 million illegal aliens who also lived in America and that a much higher percentage of these folks lived below the poverty level. Since the illegals are not included in the Census figures, the actual poverty rate across the country was probably in excess of 17%.
3) In 1969, the USA spent 8.3% of its gross domestic product on military expenditures. In 2011, America spent only 4.5% of the GDP on the military. That means that about 3.8% of the GDP was freed up by the cut in military spending.
4) In 1969, domestic spending by the federal government was just under 11% of the GDP. In 2011, domestic spending was just about 20% of GDP. So, the level of spending came close to doubling in 42 years.
5) In 2010, according to an official report of the USDA, 14.5% of American households were "food insecure"; in other words, these are homes in which the residents had difficulty getting enough to eat even after programs like food stamps are considered. Again, this study ignores the hidden millions of impoverished illegal aliens, so the figure is probably closer to 16%.
6) In 1969, hunger in America was so extensive that then president Richard Nixon began a special initiative for the government to wipe out hunger. According to the government of that day, 16% of Americans were "hungry", the 1969 term for being "food insecure".
Just looking at these facts make clear the true value of the vast government expenditures on social programs. In the last 42 years, domestic spending has nearly doubled. During that same time, the percentage of folks living in poverty has increased by about 40%, and the percentage who live in hunger is essentially unchanged. America has spent many trillions of dollars only to see poverty rise drastically and hunger remain unchanged.
If there is anyone who actually believes that cutting government spending will truly hurt the country, I suggest that we get that person's name so that it can be added to the list of the mentally ill who ought not be allowed to buy guns.
No comments:
Post a Comment