John Stossel
\nWND.com<\/p>\n
\u201cDevastating!\u201d shouts Chuck Schumer. Even Republicans are unhappy. Big-spending \u201cconservative\u201d Rep. Hal Rogers calls President Donald Trump\u2019s proposed budget cuts \u201cdraconian, careless and counterproductive.\u201d<\/p>\n
But Trump\u2019s cuts are good! Why do politicians always assume that government spending helps people? It always has unintended consequences.<\/p>\n
Foreign aid is attached to idealistic notions like ending global poverty and making friends abroad. Politicians also thought that by rewarding countries that behave well, America could steer the whole world toward responsible practices like holding elections and allowing companies (especially U.S. companies) to operate without interference. The young nation of Israel could be propped up with money for its military defense and infrastructure projects.<\/p>\n
But today, the U.S. sends money to friends and foes alike, and it\u2019s hard to know what those countries do with it. Israel gets billions of dollars \u2013 but we give even more money to Israel\u2019s enemies.<\/p>\n
Money we give to impoverished nations seldom reaches the poor people we want to help. The funds routinely go to the kleptocrat governments that made those countries such horrible places to live in the first place. Our gifts prop up authoritarians, making it easier for them to avoid free-market reforms.<\/p>\n
We\u2019re just as dumb about spending at home.<\/p>\n
The Department of Education doesn\u2019t teach any kids. It imposes standards on local schools that make it harder for them to experiment. It hires bureaucrats who do endless studies \u2013 instead of letting competition show us what teaching methods get the best results.<\/p>\n
The Department of Education also promotes government-subsidized student loans that trick students into thinking that no matter which school they pick, no matter their major, they will graduate with useful, marketable skills. Many go deeply into debt just when they should be getting a start in life.<\/p>\n
The Department of Agriculture tips American elections. Presidential candidates promise farm subsidies to try to win the early Iowa primary. Politicians say the subsidies will rescue struggling small farms, but they rarely do. Most of the money goes to big, well-connected agribusiness. They shouldn\u2019t get subsidies any more than other businesses should.<\/p>\n
The so-called \u201cwar on poverty\u201d has now cost almost $22 trillion, about three times what we\u2019ve spent on all America\u2019s wars. Yet poverty endures, even as markets and technology should have eliminated most of it.<\/p>\n
Before the war on poverty began, Americans were steadily lifting themselves out of poverty. The well-intended handouts increased dependence and stopped that natural progress. They perpetuated<\/i> poverty.<\/p>\n
Obviously, some federal programs do help people. When you spend trillions of dollars, some of it will be put to good use.<\/p>\n
But that doesn\u2019t mean the Economic Development Administration, \u201cEssential\u201d Air Service, Community Services block grants or even Meals on Wheels deserve a penny more of your taxes.<\/p>\n