This is the classic red herring sleight of hand people use to vilify any attempts to cut government spending — assuming all “life-giving” programs are unassailable by virtue of the fact they *purport* to benefit people who are not wealthy. It is this very (oftentimes unconscious) assumption that many unscrupulous actors use to defraud the taxpayer, using sympathetic causes as a shield to make questioning their impropriety politically problematic. Until we can get over this notion that every organization that says they do “good” things is unquestionably good, this will remain a major pipeline for fraud and abuse.
Derek Thompson
Derek Thompson30.7.2025
One lesson of DOGE is that a lot of federal govt spending is sent to old ppl (social security, Medicare) and affluent individuals/orgs (defense, health spending) but the spending with the highest “lives saved per dollar spent” tends to go to v poor people or to scientists working on ignored diseases So if you’re trying to slash govt spending without upsetting old/affluent interests you’re (a) going to fail to find meaningful cuts and (b) inevitably gutting some of the most life-giving programs. (And that’s bad.)
53,65K