I've been reading a lot about the upcoming government spending freezes. It's tricky to figure out exactly who will be affected, but odds are, nobody's getting out unscathed.
The media is quick to assure everyone that education will not be touched, but in cities in towns where parks or other areas are having their spending slashed; it's not unusual to think that officials may pull from other, bigger budgets--like education--to make up the difference.
I realize that's not how things are SUPPOSED to work, but as often happens in cities in towns that fly under the radar, officials do what they like with government money.
Also, I understand the confusion people feel about a spending freeze when one of the first major moves of Obama's presidency was a stimulus package. I understand that the freeze is meant curb unnecessary government spending, but it's hard to argue that after handing out welcome yet seemingly unnecessary stimulus money.
Most of the people that I know didn't pump their stimulus money back into the economy, they used it to pay off bills. The only people who may have been stimulated were the credit card companies.
The flip side of all this is that I do feel an argument can be made for tightening the belts. Many people are pointing out that government departments facing cuts are already underfunded.
Question: When haven't government officials said their departments were underfunded? Anyone even glancing at the news for the past few years should have learned by now how to run their departments on as slim a budget as possible.
It'll be interesting to see the exact nature of the cuts on February 1st when the White House reveals the details, but until then, the main question seems to be--
What is there left to freeze?
The media is quick to assure everyone that education will not be touched, but in cities in towns where parks or other areas are having their spending slashed; it's not unusual to think that officials may pull from other, bigger budgets--like education--to make up the difference.
I realize that's not how things are SUPPOSED to work, but as often happens in cities in towns that fly under the radar, officials do what they like with government money.
Also, I understand the confusion people feel about a spending freeze when one of the first major moves of Obama's presidency was a stimulus package. I understand that the freeze is meant curb unnecessary government spending, but it's hard to argue that after handing out welcome yet seemingly unnecessary stimulus money.
Most of the people that I know didn't pump their stimulus money back into the economy, they used it to pay off bills. The only people who may have been stimulated were the credit card companies.
The flip side of all this is that I do feel an argument can be made for tightening the belts. Many people are pointing out that government departments facing cuts are already underfunded.
Question: When haven't government officials said their departments were underfunded? Anyone even glancing at the news for the past few years should have learned by now how to run their departments on as slim a budget as possible.
It'll be interesting to see the exact nature of the cuts on February 1st when the White House reveals the details, but until then, the main question seems to be--
What is there left to freeze?
Comments
Post a Comment