Government spending is the problem, not the answer

In a little more than a week, Congress returns from its month-long summer recess, and no doubt one of the first issues to be taken up will be the gargantuan fiscal 2002 budget.

Already pundits, hacks, quacks and members of both parties are wailing on about the alleged budgetary shortfalls caused by a slowing of the U.S. economy. Best guestimates say Congress will need to dip into Social Security funds to the tune of between $1-9 billion, just to make next year's budget come out level.

Why is this even necessary? Why can't Congress just cut its budget? There are two reasons.

First is the power angle. Few people in Washington, D.C., want to give up the power inherent in holding the purse strings. If you control a person's (or a state's) finances, you control the person (or the state).

TRENDING: High-school track coach fired after going scorched earth on decision to force masks on teen athletes

Secondly – and this is probably more important – there are few congressional voices crying out to trim the federal budget because there are too many of us commoners out here in the Hinterlands who want Congress to have that kind of control over our lives.

That group is part of a growing number of Americans who are addicted to Uncle Sam's various taxpayer-supported "charities."

As long as these two phenomena exist, don't look for Congress to end its love affair with the taxpayers' money.

This gets worse. If no real reforms are in the cards, here's how this will play out: