A challenge

What’s the political equivalent of a quack?

At any rate, the political quacks in D.C. are at it again pretending that they are going to do something responsible about spending the taxpayers’ money. On one hand, you have the Republiquacks saying that they can find $700 billion in spending to cut–yes, these are the same Republiquacks who voted for the $400 billion and growing Medicare drug benefit. On the other hand, you have the Demoquacks waiving their hands in the air saying that cuts would have to come from veterans benefits and the like.

In the middle, you have an economy that is still shrinking by something like 2.5 percent per year–yes, the economy has to be growing faster than inflation to actually be growing–and is overdrawn to the tune of $19 trillion or so–a value that would take more than 100 years to pay off if it grew at a rate greater than 10 percent for the next 100 years and all of that growth went into paying the debt.

Now, if I were imperator of D.C., I would fix this problem by setting up an independent commission made up of taxpaying citizens–these citizens being defined as people who pay more taxes than they receive in refunds and whose income is not completely earned from tax spending–whose job it would be to identify any law authorizing the expenditure of money not authorized by the actual Constitution and recommend it to Congress for elimination before I eliminated it by decree anyway. Since I’m pretty sure that would strike down 2/3 of the federal executive, I’m pretty sure it would also eliminate 3/4 of the spending and the problem would be solved.

But that’s not going to happen, so how would you solve this problem? Post your answers in the comments.


This entry was posted in Economy, Government, Nations, Politics, Quid Facis, Spending, United States, World Watch and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to A challenge

  1. Cephas says:

    I like your idea, seems like it would work.

    Another (more narrow) idea: Make national politicians work for the median income of the area they represent. That’d save us a lot of money, and maybe make the politicians a tad more realistic about life in general. That said, most of them have gobs of money to begin with, but at least it’d be a step in the right direction, and save us a little money.

    I also think a “pay as you go” amendment wouldn’t be a bad idea, if it was executed properly. More than that, each spending measure approved by congress should include some sort of forward progress, i.e. make the government more efficient/less spendy, until the debt is gone. For instance, if a bill is going to cost $500 million, it should be paid for at the rate of $600 million, with the excess going to reduce debt.

  2. Keba says:

    Along with the median income idea, politicians would be on the same retirement plan as most people – put money away on your own initiative.

  3. Sue says:

    We already have a “pay as you go” law on the books (two of them I think). That is what Sen. Bunting wanted to use before he would vote for the previous round of benefits. We need to actually enforce it (find actual money in current spending and not the “less increase in the future spending equals found money for current spending” excuse to skirt the law.

  4. dlhitzeman says:

    How about this one (via Jungle Trader):

    “U.S. President Barack Obama: “As I’ve said from the start, there’s no quick fix to the worst recession we’ve experienced since the Great Depression.”

    Yes, there is. Decriminalize tax evasion…”

    Read the rest at his site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *