Insanity has engulfed us during the election season, but at least there are still some shining examples of how to be a good representative of the people out there.

And once again, this example comes from Rand Paul.

A video has resurfaced of a 2015 debate about the Older Americans Act, which sets aside billions of dollars to provide for seniors. During a discussion about spending on our medical system, Rand Paul points out that spending billions to save money is not at all saving money. This, of course, was disagreed upon by Bernie Sanders, who said that spending this money saves money. He reasons that if an ounce of prevention is good, then billions of dollars of prevention must be better.

The OAA isn’t up to snuff, and so like any government program that’s failing, it just needs more money. Sanders believes it’s the government’s duty to keep people healthy, and wished to throw $2 billion at an act that allows seniors to stay at home, instead of a nursing home. While this sounds like a noble thing, this opens up an avenue of abuse, and puts more burden on the taxpayers.

Rand Paul pointed out the slippery slope they were on.

“If we are saving money by the $2 billion dollars we spend, perhaps we should give you $20 billion,” said Paul. “Is there a limit? Where would we get to? How much money should we give you in order to save money? So if we spend federal money to save money, where is the limit? I think we could reach a point of absurdity.”

Paul is correct. We create government programs designed to help, but like any government program, it’s never effective enough. At some point it will always want to expand its reach, and do more. It will always require more money, and we need to learn to problem solve without reaching the conclusion that we should just throw more money at it.