ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Government waste is immoral |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Government waste is immoral

| Friday, January 18, 2019 10:00 a.m

Our president is asking Congress for less than 1 percent of the federal budget to ensure security on our southern border. However, the Democrats have decided to hold federal workers hostage during the negotiations to deny the president his sworn duty to protect this nation.

In an October 2009 article, Brian Riedl, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, cited 50 examples of wasted money by those who would put the security of our nation in jeopardy for a political win. Here are just a few examples:

• The federal government made at least $72 billion in improper payments in 2008.

• Washington spends $92 billion on corporate welfare (excluding the Troubled Asset Relief Program) versus $71 billion on homeland security.

• Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.
• Government auditors spent five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them — costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually — fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

Nancy Pelosi calls the construction of a wall on the southern border “immoral.” What I would say to Pelosi is the waste of our hard-earned tax money in this manner is the most immoral thing our government has imposed on us.

Ed Liberatore

Turtle Creek

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.