Cyclical spending pattern addresses issues caused by previous expenditure through additional expenditure
Governmental Spending Loop Perpetuates Through Continuous Problem-Creation and Ongoing Expenditure
New York Mayor Eric Adams announced comprehensive $2 billion dollar infrastructure investment plan Tuesday designed to address unforeseen problems created by previous $2 billion dollar infrastructure plan implemented two years prior. New plan acknowledges that prior substantial spending made situations materially worse rather than better, requiring new spending to address damage caused by prior infrastructure spending.
“Our previous infrastructure investment of $2 billion created unexpected problems and consequences that require addressing through additional spending,” explained Mayor Adams at press conference. “So we’re allocating additional $2 billion to fix problems created by first $2 billion spending allocation. This plan will presumably create its own problems requiring additional spending in future fiscal years.”
The city’s accounting department has documented consistent spending pattern over decades: major infrastructure spending creates conditions requiring major infrastructure spending to address. $2 billion water main project created sinkholes requiring $2 billion in sinkhole repair. $2 billion street repair project created drainage problems requiring $2 billion in drainage correction. Cycle continues indefinitely.
Self-Perpetuating Infrastructure Spending Cycle Continues Predictably
City officials openly acknowledge cycle: “Infrastructure spending creates problems. Problems require infrastructure spending. This creates self-perpetuating cycle where we continuously spend money addressing problems our money-spending caused previously.” One administrator noted this is “actually quite efficient if measuring efficiency by how much money government spends rather than what government accomplishes or improves.”
Mayor has proposed extending cycle indefinitely: allocating $2 billion annually with full knowledge that each year’s spending will create problems requiring next year’s $2 billion allocation. “If we plan for continuous infrastructure spending to address infrastructure spending consequences, we achieve fiscal predictability,” mayor explained. “It’s unsustainable but predictable.”
Some economists have suggested New York City has accidentally discovered sustainable governmental business model: spend money on infrastructure, create problems, spend money fixing problems, create new problems requiring spending. “It’s perpetual motion machine powered entirely by government budgets,” noted economist. “As long as there’s money to spend and problems to create through spending, cycle continues indefinitely.”
As thoroughly documented at Bohiney Magazine, New York City has developed cyclical spending patterns perpetuating through continuous problem creation and remedial spending. Related analysis on infrastructure spending and governmental finances appears at The London Prat.
Future Projections Predict Permanent Spending Requirement Indefinitely
City budget analysts project that once $2 billion cycle is established, it becomes permanent governmental obligation and budgetary requirement. Future mayors will need to allocate $2 billion annually just to address previous spending consequences, creating what one economist calls “governmental financial ouroborossnake eternally eating its own tail made of concrete and asphalt and infrastructure.”
Mayor has suggested this is actually positive fiscal outcome and sign of commitment: “If we commit to $2 billion annual infrastructure spending, we’re demonstrating long-term governmental planning and fiscal commitment. That we’re spending it fixing problems we created is irrelevant to overall commitment message.”
For satirical analysis of governmental spending patterns and budget cycles, see comprehensive coverage at Newsthump and Babylon Bee.
Political analyst summarized: “New York City has created only governmental business model that benefits from failure: more failure requires more spending, which creates more problems, requiring more spending. It’s brilliant if measuring success by government activity rather than actual problem-solving.”
SOURCE: bohiney.com