We can't afford it.

I enjoy cooking.  I have been doing most of the cooking in our house for several years.

Maybe this is why I have become more in tune with what the Government is cooking up.

Listening to the news lately it has become clear that, “we can’t afford it” is the mantra of the 2011 political world.  Both sides, assuming there are two sides…or only two sides…argue about what the “it” is that we can’t afford. 

Not that budget considerations have not always been the first concern for politicians, but now “we can’t afford it” is the smoke-screen for both sides to promote half-baked political agenda and attack programs they don’t like.

Because of mind-boggling waste and inefficiency and a couple of decades of clinging to the stale failed “trickle-down” economics model, the federal, state and most local governments are up to their various orifices in debt.

This economic model is a reflection of the current American business model.  This model calls for staying with a get-rich now approach until forced to change.  Then, cut costs today to get an immediate better bottom line and return greater dividends to investors.  If these cuts result in disaster two, five or ten years later that will be someone else’s problem.  You might recognize this model as the one that kept U.S. car makers building gas guzzling giant SUVs in spite of sky-rocketing fuel prices.  In a few short years General Motors went from the largest corporation in the world to bankruptcy.

What if U.S. car makers had actually invested in technology that would result in vehicles that consumers might want…or could afford to drive?  The Japanese did this years ago and by golly guess who’s number one?  Toyota.

In the 1960’s the government got the idea that the greatest public good could be served by investing in America’s future.  They started programs like Head Start to give children living in poverty a chance to overcome their social and economic disadvantage.  Education, it seemed, might make them better equipped to someday find work and escape poverty.  Then these citizens could become contributing members of society, that is, tax payers. 

It was a recipe for success and it worked for thousands and it still does.

Now, Head Start, along with WIC and other domestic programs are on the chopping block because, “We can’t afford them.”

These programs are not cheap.  The 2010 budget for Head Start was approximately $7 billion.

By comparison, each controversial Lockheed F22-A fighter plane costs U.S. taxpayers $177.6 million.  Approximately 183 F-22 fighters have been purchased at a cost of $34 billion.  This is in addition to 2,500 fighter planes already in service.  All of that is just a small part of a military budget (approximately $1.3 trillion in 2010) that is equal to four times the combined budgets of every other country in the world.

More amazing is the cost to taxpayers of the recent bailout of Wall Street when it followed the same business model described above.  Estimates ranged from around $2 trillion to as much as $4.4 trillion.  That’s a lot of Head Start (well over 570 years worth).  Heck that’s even a lot of F22-As!

I don’t have the answer.  I just thought I would serve up some food for thought for the logic-starved budget debate.