All the US government's waste: the misspending of tax dollars

A few ways the American federal government wastes money that bother me:

Earmarks (a touchy, representative subject; aka pork);

Subsidies (especially when they're not needed or don't effectively help, including for some employers and parts of the agriculture sector, namely ethanol-related);

Faith-based initiatives (cannot see merits; not only does the idea ignore the fundamental principle of separation of church and state, but the initiatives can only help a certain group based on their religion; also helps Bush politically with Evangelical demographic).

While the US government cuts down on funding for scientific research, education, and consumer protection, it wastes money on things that only benefit special interests — e.g. corn farmers (subsidies) or Christian Evangelicals (faith-based initiatives). Ironically, some of the waste is a result of a lack of, say, good education, especially in the case of manufacturing industries affected by globalization getting federal funding and subsidies. In short, much of this waste is counterproductive and the money could be better spent on universally-helpful things like health and education.

To remain competitive, subsidies and tariffs (i.e. protectionism) are not the answer. They limit consumer choice, waste government funds, and inhibit the benefits of competition, such as better products. In addition, they are created largely to politically please special interest groups. All of the aforementioned wastes of taxpayer dollars do not help the nation as a whole, not do they help a large group of people in need — helping the general public and the needy should be the government's priority, not wasting money on special interests just to get a few more votes (which alienates the general public, I might add).

Encouraged research and development and public education are much better answers to the nation's economic problems than throwing tax dollars down the drain into failing industries — that money could be better spent on things that help the nation as a whole, in addition to those who need the help most. The money spent on failed or worthless causes could do great things, if the government — that includes the White House and Congress — wasn't interested most in pleasing the polarizing special interests and encouraging the negative cycle brought about by all this waste. Heck, if less money was spend on all this junk, taxes could be lowered, thus pleasing the fiscal conservatives. America and its moderate, progressive forces would win, and the backwards and unhelpful groups that much of this money is being given to would lose.

There is debate over whether special interests help or hurt America (see list of pros and cons). They do both. But the ones on K Street that corrupt the US government and contribute to the massive waste of money we see are the ones who need their influence to be lessened, for they hold far too much power and harm the nation's political and financial well-being, hurting progress in economic and social areas, and adding to the apathy felt by the American public. In one sense, special interests are a part of democracy. In another, they harm the principle of the government of the people by taking chunks of influence away from the people, often with lobbying money and perks.

Restrictions on lobbying, on pork-barrel legislation, and on unnecessary and only politically-motivated aid to businesses and industries are needed; transparency in government (spending) must be increased — or the corrupt win. What's more important, special interests or the public interest?

All Bush, no action

US President George Bush. If one called him an environmentalist, one would be considered an absolute idiot. In America, has deregulated modest environmental controls, killed many eco-initiatives, rolled back years of environmental progress while accelarating the detrimental effect the US has on our planet. No, the purpose of this post isn't to go on another environmental schpiel, but the environment — like human rights and all other things not relating to war or money — is one of the subjects Bush is all talk, no action on.

He has proposed action on reducing greenhouse gases, even though he hardly, if at all, believes in global warming. Of course this is to pacify the international community infuriated by the US's inaction on such pressing global issues. Like his other not-so-bright ideas that he doesn't actually believe in, which are basically just rhetoric, there is no goal to actually take action on climate change from within the White House. Bush presented no ideas on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and outrightly opposed such common and expert-suggested actions like carbon trading and caps — sensible steps that can be taken modestly. In short, he has opposed any action at all. His administration has a track record on blocking progress in the battle against human caused climate change.

Rhetoric has seeped from the White House these past six years possibly more than ever. This rhetoric is often irrational and false. The administration has been unaccountable and the least transparent since Nixon's horrendous time in office. The environment and human rights might not be politically sexy issues like terrorism, but at the end of the day they matter more.

Not destroying the planet we inhabit to the point which we can survive no more should be a goal of governments everywhere — and it is a goal of many. However time and time again the only environmental policies the administration has enacted are either diluted forms of old ones or those in which it eats out of the hands of the agriculture or energy lobbies. And no, corn ethanol is not good for the environment. The only thing it is good for are the American farmers. Pain to the environment is a high price to pay for pleasing special interests — like when Ronald Reagen had the brilliant idea of sacking many of the US's practical and fuel efficient trains and killing the competition of the truck driver lobby. it is actually counterproductive to make because it takes nearly 30% more energy to create than it gives out (another plant Bush has spoken about, switchgrass, uses 45% more energy to make than it ultimately gives out, and that's not Bush bashing, its science. That is energy made by — drumroll please — the same fossil fuels America apparantly hoped to get away from in the first place. Coal has also popped up as a contender to power the US's massive energy usage. Coal is also much dirtier than oil, and is an overall stupid fuel to use in that it is amazingly unenvironmentally friendly.

Sugar ethanol might well be the way to go. One might think it would be easy, with free trade and all, and Brazil — which uses E85 sugar ethanol — only a bit away. The catch-22(s): free trade isn't that free when you have lobbyist and special interests nipping at your political power. One of the many problems in America which I hope to cover soon is indeed the prevalence of special interests and the detrimental affect they wreak on democracy.

Like many, I am skeptical of Bush's new environmental plan. As climate change reaches another 'tipping point' — honestly, hysterics don't help either — action must be taken. And his announcement comes after America refused a sensible G8 action plan on reducing greenhouse gases. Bush has a hard time accepting science. This is in part due to his wanting to reach into the deep pockets of the lobbyists for political and financial gold, but also comes as a result of his stubborn, narrow ideology, the same ideology that rejects scientifically-backed up evolution in favor of a more religious approach. And some people wonder why he has messed up the United States so much.