This year has seen its fair share of untimely disasters. Tornado’s rocked the south in states like Alabama, Tennessee, the Carolina’s, etc. with damaged not seen in a long time. Flooding occurring around the same time happened up and down the Mississippi river with damage not seen in almost 20 years. And even though this disaster did not happen in North America, the Earth quake and relate Tsunami mentally affected American’s and called in to question what would happen if it had happened in North America. When disaster hits, the government is looked to save the day. Communities pitch in and business can play a part in helping but ultimately it is the government who is held accountable to bring about recovery. So how does that idea work in a small government mindset? When there is no budget for emergencies of this scale, where does the money come from? Some in congress wanted that approval tied to spending cuts in other areas but which areas? Defense or entitlements? And is it hypocritical to expect small government to play a large role?
My point in all of this is to call out those that want it both ways, small government when things are fine but large government when they need it in emergency situations. It is easy to oversimplify government spending. The experience that I have just budgeting one department leads me to believe that it is very complex process with a lot of moving parts. And for all the ideas that cutting off entitlement programs that benefit the poor (or whatever adjective you would use) would save a boat load of YOUR money remember that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Meaning sometimes you have to spend money to save money.