Supposing you gave your kid $10 a week allowance and he spent $12, borrowing $2.\u00a0 He said $10 wasn’t enough, and you raised it to $12.\u00a0 Then he spent $15, because $12 wasn’t enough.\u00a0 Then it was $20.\u00a0 After a while, he owed more than a week’s worth of allowance, and then a month’s.\u00a0 Eventually, you’d get fed up and tell him you were lowering it from $20 (double what it was originally) to $19, and that he’d have to spend less.<\/p>\n
This is common sense, right?\u00a0 The only ridiculous part would be letting it double in the first place.<\/p>\n
Ahhh, but the kid throws a fit.\u00a0 He tells you your greedy, and that you need to pay what’s fair.\u00a0 And he asks you how he’s supposed to pay for a decrease to $19, as if it’s his money and everything you earn and still have is what you’re allowed to keep by your own kid.\u00a0 Would you put up with this?<\/p>\n
Of course you would, because you already do.\u00a0 The hypothetical scenario above is what the government does constantly.\u00a0 No matter what it receives, it spends more.\u00a0 And it’s your fault it doesn’t have enough, even though it takes in more and more all the time.\u00a0 People accept the premise the government doesn’t take in enough money, but it takes in more than it needs and wastes it.\u00a0 So consider this.\u00a0 Do you believe the government spends money efficiently?\u00a0 Of course not.<\/p>\n
So why believe it needs more, when the best way to force efficiency is to decrease what it has to waste?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supposing you gave your kid $10 a week allowance and he spent $12, borrowing $2.\u00a0 He said $10 wasn’t enough, and you raised it to $12.\u00a0 Then he spent $15, because $12 wasn’t enough.\u00a0 Then it was $20.\u00a0 After a … Continue reading