Dear Editor:
A recent Our Opinion noted that Mid-Missourians are pitching in to provide relief for victims of wildfires in surrounding states, the effort deserves commendation. The piece also laments that federal funding to train firefighters is being cut. Why should we allow the federal government to further indebt future generations to fund the program?
If Missouri, Indiana, Iowa and Illinois, members of the Big Rivers Forest Fire Management Compact, believe the training to be worthwhile, and it certainly seems that it is, then why shouldn't those states fund the training?
Seven years after the end of the "great recession" federal government receipts are $300 billion higher (an increase of $2,380 per US household) than they were before the recession, yet we are running far higher annual deficits. What justifies the $677 billion increase ($5,380 per US household) in federal spending during that time? National defense spending was actually reduced by $35 billion during that time period.
To be fair it should be noted that Social Security and Medicare accounted for $356 billion of the $677 billion spending increase. Still, even after adjusting for the increased spending on Social Security and Medicare, and the reduction in spending on national defense, why did the federal government spend $356 billion (over $2,800 per household) more in 2016 than it did in 2007?
The 2015 poverty rate was 13.5 percent. 13.5 percent of our 125.8 million households equates to approximately 17 million households in poverty. Did those 17 million households receive $21,000 more in benefits in 2016 than they did in 2007? I doubt it. Whose pockets are being stuffed with all this additional spending?
Prior to approving any federal expenditure politicians should ask, "Can this service only be provided by the federal government and is this program so valuable that it is worth piling more debt on the shoulders of all future generations?" I am not so nave as to think this will happen, politicians know that handing out "free stuff" buys them votes. Most of them have proven, based on past budget votes, that they could care less about future generations.
(All figures are in 2009 dollars.)