Editorial: On the surface, cutting spending is a good idea
Published 12:00 am Sunday, September 18, 2005
President Bush stepped up to the plate, er the microphone Thursday to accept responsibility for the slow response of the government before, during and after Hurricane Katrina, a wise move.
The problem now is Bush said the government will pay whatever it takes to rebuild New Orleans into a better city. No problem, but he proposed doing so without a tax increase, suggesting instead he’d cut spending. Sounds like an empty promise to us.
When a politican says he or she will cut spending, it usually means cutting spending to programs which will help those people who survived the flood get back on their feet. It seldom means the waste in government will be cut.
Email newsletter signup
Bush seems happy to spend money on credit to rebuild the hurricane- and flood-ravages areas, which will be added onto the $7.9 trillion national debt.
Us common folk have learned when it comes to credit, one must eventually pay the piper and it is usually painful.
What will America’s future sacrifices be when it comes time to pay the debt?
Perhaps Bush should take a page from the business manual on maintaining financial health and balance. Most areas of government could find a way to cut costs without cutting money to programs which will prove vital to rebuilding the southern cities hit by Katrina. An edict offering what is an acceptable cut versus what is unacceptable could go a long ways toward finding cash to help hurricane victims.
Accepting responsibility for a slow emergency response was a good move, but not if it results in fiscal irresponsibility.