Politicians pushing new programs trumpet the benefits, never consider the costs. As a result...

Ever wonder why 537 (435 + 100 + 2) dumb, corrupt sons of bitches are so abysmally bad at running the country?

No, you probably haven't.  And it's really not you're fault: You're way too busy trying to keep your kids from using fentanyl or other drugs, too busy working to pay your taxes and keep food on the table.  Too busy trying to remember what you aren't allowed to say if you wanna keep your job.

If you're a single, college-age American you don't really have a good grasp of what I mean, and that's not your fault either.  But it's also not good, and we'll get to that later.

A conservative (John Hayward) noted (essentially) that politicians pushing new programs to buy votes always trumpet the *faaabulous* benefits of whatever they're pushing, but cleverly never mention the costs.

Obviously that's understandable: Let conservatives (are there any left?) whine about the costs, while Democrats (usually the party pushing free shit for voters) bask in the warm glow of voter approval (i.e. re-election) for giving voters "freebies."  

Which, as should be glaringly obvious, aren't free.  But people who haven't the faintest grasp of things like "compound interest" and "exponential debt growth" are too caught up in the euphoria of "Wow, FREE shit!" to realize that.

The result is that every year dozens of government programs are launched without voters having any realistic idea of what they'll cost, or what unexpected consequences they're likely to have.

This pattern has been repeated since 1935, or possibly earlier, yet no one seems to have learned the con.  Either that or the voters just don't care, and I'll go either way you want on that.

By the way: it's a cliche that we don't expect children to have the experience or sense to make good decisions about the future.  But by stark contrast, adults *are* expected to make good decisions about the future.

Of course most adults can't do that if the "future" is more than a week away, but at least *some* can.  And one hopes that the dumb sons of bitches running the country are able to do that.  But of course....

Now back to the problem at hand:  There's a huge, important difference between state and federal programs:  In the past, state politicians were at least somewhat reluctant to enact a really insanely dumb program, their state's voters would be on the hook for the cost.  And local voters know they can vote out stupid or corrupt pols.  

By contrast, if you don't live in Cali or NY or Illinois, you have no way at all to vote out Pelosi or Schiff or Swalwell or Chuck Schumer or AOC or Nadler or Ayana Pressley or Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib or the rest of the corrupt Democrat crew.  They can give you the finger and you can't do squat about it.

But unfortunately, states like Cali, NY, Illinois and Pennsylvania are so crucial to the Dems' winning the presidency that if Dem pols running any of those states were to roll out an abysmally stupid program that went south so badly that they threatened the state, a corrupt Dem administration will bail them out.

So the old basis of "federalism"--that pols in individual states could try stupid programs, and if the programs were poorly conceived or poorly run, they'd fail without costing the rest of us, is no more--and thus is not a deterrent to stupid state programs.

Finally, another quick test: Which political party is better at: financial responsibility, self-sacrifice, delayed gratification, self-discipline, and upholding the Constitution?

Page 2 of that test: Which party is known for favoring "feelings over facts;" "the ends justify the means;" "white people are guilty--regardless of the question;"  and "The Constitution is outdated--should no longer be considered the 'Supreme Law of the Land'?"