A Budget Of Wimps





Photo credit: Jessie Owen (Creative Commons)

If you weighed 1,000 pounds, would people notice you lost weight if you went down to 999 pounds?

In Congress, the Republicans feared there would be another shutdown they would be blamed for.  They compromised with Democrats and presented a budget of wimps.  During the next ten years, they will cut spending by $23 billion.  The sequester, which would have cut the budget by much more than that, was done away with for fear it would keep politicians from wasting more money.  What about the debt ceiling that we will have to raise?  The Democrats complain about trickle-down economics in which the rich invest in the economy, create jobs, and purchase expensive things that again require people to service them.  They practice it all the time when they privately invest their money to produce a return that is much larger than what retired people receive from Social Security.

When Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, they believed in fire hydrant economics.  They opened the hydrant of spending, and the blast of water caused most Americans to be hosed.  Obamacare is one such hosing we were afflicted with.  When brave Republicans passed a budget in Congress that funded all the government except for Obamacare, Harry Reid and his Democrats shut much of the government down and blamed it on the Republicans in Congress.  If Obamacare was what America needed, why didn’t the Republicans separate the Affordable Care Act from the rest of the budget and force the Democrats to vote on whether we should fund nationalized health care or not?  There were too many wimps who caved to Democrat desires.  It was as if some Republicans were warning the nation about the skunk of a program called Obamacare, and Democrats in essence said to pet the skunk they called a kitty (and then thank them and Obama for the odor produced.)

If Hillary were President (like she would have been if Obama had been disqualified to run for President since he is not a natural-born citizen, as required by the Constitution), we might be facing the same problems we are facing today. Except maybe for nationalized health care since that was what brought a Republican majority to Congress.  It would have been easier to balance the budget, like Republicans did while Bill Clinton was President.

If I were President, and Republicans also controlled both houses of Congress, I would introduce Applied Capitalism to the nation.  It would allow people in Congress to receive 0.1% of the money cut from the budget as a  bounty.  If we could have cut nearly half a trillion dollars from the budget 30 years ago, as the Grace Commission recommended, dozens of bounty hunters in Congress could remove over $1 trillion from the budget now.  Sure, there would be some suffering, like when a parent takes credit cards away from their kids and tells them to get a job in order to pay for things.  If Rush Limbaugh hadn’t condemned my ideas on June 1, 1992 and called Applied Capitalism economic fascism instead of economic democracy, as I believe it would be, maybe we could have had Congressional bounty hunters, and the budget might be less than half of what it is today.

We need entitlement reform, like the 35 pages of ideas I sent to the Social Security Administration in 1992 that were rejected.  People would have been able to invest through the system and pay back more than they borrowed.  Retirees would be able to afford to live on a fixed income if prices were frozen at the levels they were when they retired.  If Democrats can invest their money privately, why won’t they allow others to do that?  Maybe they don’t care about poor people who depend on Social Security and Medicare to survive on after they retire.  I do.  That is why people would be allowed to invest through the system to give them more money to live on.  If 10 million people invested $100 billion into the economy in a decade and gained $1 trillion, Social Security might receive $200 billion, and the investors would receive $800 billion.  Yet the Social Security Administration isn’t interested in this economic idea that would make both the government and people more money.  As President, Social Security would be reformed to make it financially stronger and help retirees more.

There would be tax reform to make the code more fair.  Since the wealthy invest in the economy to make it stronger, I wouldn’t punish them for their success.  The poor who earn below their expenses before government assistance is figured in would receive a cost-of-living adjustment at tax time.  Three flat rates of 15% for those making less than $100,000, 20% for those making between $100,000 and $1 million, and 25% for those making more than a million would be instituted.  Anything that is invested in things such as medical research, energy research, and other areas of research that would benefit America would receive tax rebates equal to what is invested.  If a billionaire funded the construction of a tank for $10 million, he would receive a $10 million tax rebate.

If government land can be safely developed, it could be rented to developers for a percentage of the profits made from usage of the land.  If plasma drilling moles reach diamonds the size of your head in Alaska 200 miles down, the state and federal governments would make maybe over $1oo billion.  Leasing land for development might shrink the National Debt.  Wimps aren’t needed at a time when people with backbones are.

 

Photo credit: Jessie Owen (Creative Commons)





Do you have $25,000 in your IRA or 401(k)? This "Loophole" in IRS Code lets you move your savings to gold ... get this NO-COST Info Guide >

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>