By extrapolating from past behavior. It's not a 100% sure thing, but projecting future behavior from past behavior has a pretty good record.

You seem to think that's OK to do with government spending on programs. So how do you know what a government agency will do with more money? Or even the same amount?

It does no good to give a man fishing lessons if he's too weak from hunger to hold the fishing rod. Sometimes help has to come in steps.

Is it OK to give him the fishing rod? Is it OK to teach him how to make a net, and to subsidize the price of the rope used to make it? Is it OK to pay the teacher, or does he have to do that himself? Is it OK to make sure the water is clean, or to fund a fishery to stock the water? Is it OK to underwrite an insurance plan so that, should the line fly back in the wind, he can see an ophthomologist to get the hook removed from his eye (a common fishing accident)? Is it OK to make and enforce catch limits? How about rules about safe handling of fish to be sold to other people?

One thing's for sure: the small-time fisherman sure can't expect help from the big fishing conglomerate in town. They don't want the competition. They want to employ the fisherman, and make sure they have the only game in town. And once they own the only means of production, they will own all the fishermen.

This has happened before. Who busted up the monopolies?

The only balance for one behemoth is another. Big business made big government not only possible, but necessary. To make the need for big government go away, big business (which, incidentally, funds the electoral process) has to go away. I'd hold my breath, but it scares the children when I turn blue.

Regards--
Mary Anne