And the truth is, there were no budget cuts – only a slight decrease in the rate of perpetual spending increases. John Hayward, always right on target with his assessment, correctly identifies the problem with Ebola and lots of other things in our country: the government is an ineptocracy, and the consequence of failure in an ineptocracy is MORE MONEY to spend on stupid stuff that has nothing to do with what they’re supposed to be doing.
Case in point: the Centers for Disease Control and National Institutes of Health. Swimming in funding, they find money to study why lesbians are obese, but can’t seem to come up with a cogent strategy to stop the spread of a disease that the Chief Ineptocrat said would “likely never come here.” Right. I’m thinking minor epidemic, at least.
And it’s not just nutjob progressive groups or loony cable-TV hosts spreading this nonsense; last week, Hillary Clinton also blamed the Left’s all-purpose failure demon, the sequestration “cuts” actually mild reductions in the rates of spending growth from the 2011 Budget Control Act for any problems that might arise in the government’s response to Ebola. “They’re working heroically, but they don’t have the resources they used to have,” Mrs. Clinton sniffed.
Thus is the one and only example of spending restraint from the hilariously misnamed “Budget Control Act” – a tiny tap on the spending brakes, which has since been largely rescinded – blamed for every blunder of the $3.5 trillion super-sized government worshiped by the Left as the best doctor, investor, builder, business manager, charity, and employer in human history. Every dollar the State does not receive is the one dollar that causes the whole damn operation to unravel. The sort of actual, honest-to-God spending cut that most private-sector businesses deal with on a regular basis would reduce Washington to rubble. And if people like Hillary Clinton are going to keep blaming sequestration for everything, should we pause for a refresher course on the history of that ill-fated bit of automated fiscal restraint, and remember exactly whose idea it was? Hint: his initials are “BHO,” and the reason he came up with the idea was to terrorize Republicans into accepting tax increases by threatening them with mandatory cuts to defense spending. That would be the same “BHO” who is currently losing a war in the Middle East against a threat he refused to see until it was far too late).
In truth, the CDC and NIH are swimming in money, just like every other appendage of this ridiculously overpriced, painfully mis-managed government. Like every other agency, they fritter away their money on silly distractions and naked attempts to extend their power. They put more effort into “mission creep” than their actual mission. When confronted with a crisis that exposes an inability to handle core functions, the agency curls into a defensive crouch and begins whining that it’s under-funded. If that works – and until now, it often has – the result is growth through failure. Instead of being torn to bits by enraged taxpayers, the agency gets more money than ever before, and promptly begins wasting it on robot-squirrel studies to cite one of the more memorable examples of madcap spending from Senator Tom Coburn’s epic “Wastebook” series.The NIH makes an appearance in the most recent edition of the Wastebook, for spending $325,525 on a study to determine if marriages are happier when angry wives calm down quickly. The answer, you will be shocked to learn, is “yes,” although the Wastebook archly advises, “Regardless, men who want a happy marriage are probably wise to avoid telling their wives the government’s advice to resolving marital conflicts is for her to calm down.”The 2014 edition of the Wastebook hasn’t been released yet, but it’s a fair bet that the NIH’s $1.5 million study of “biological and social factors” to determine why lesbians tend toward obesity more than homosexual males will make the cut.