This is a false dichotomy, which frames the question as a an either/or issue, ignoring other alternatives. Of course, this is a common tactic of the logic-challenged.
I ask: "How about cutting or even eliminating both?"
I've long been on record here and elsewhere that I believe in the "beggars can't be choosers" school of thought. While I don't want anyone to starve, neither do I think that I should be required to effectively hand over cash so that the hungry can shop for whatever goodies they feel like--from roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes even up to fast-food! How about making food-stamp program a voucher for rice and beans and vitamins?
Then we can cut corporate welfare at the same time.
- According to that Cato report the single biggest item in the corporate welfare list is FHA mortgage subsidies at $15.739B. Cut 'em.
- Second largest is National Institute of Health, Applied R&D at $13.845B. Let big pharma do their own research. Cut it.
- Third biggest is Farm Services Agency, which as far as I can read their documentation is farm loans, at $11.863B. Cut 'em.
- "Energy supply and conservation" is another big one, at $9.834B. I can only guess at what they spend their money on, but I wouldn't be surprised to find Solyndra in that pile. Cut 'em.
- Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $4.834B. Call those loans, then cut the program.
- Foreign Military Financing, $5.2B. Cut it.
- Small Business Administration (loans programs as far as I can tell), $3.157B. Cut em.
- NASA, Applied R&D, $2.799B. Cut it.
- Broadband Technologies Opportunity Program, $2.227B. Cut it.
- High-speed rail, $1.251B. Cut it.
Funny, though, there's no line item here "Shovel money into Wall Street coffers." I was convinced by liberals that this was the primary use of corporate welfare.
No comments:
Post a Comment