Sunday, June 14, 2009

MSM Beginning To Cover The Debt Problem

President Obama's got a creeping problem in his own party, and that is discomfort with mounting debt. I have a number of Democrat friends who are fiscally responsible, and I sense this same discomfort with them.

Obama's plan---whipsaw the economy into gear with HUGE spending--and worry about debt later when the economy is in a better position to withstand it--makes sense on some levels, most of them short-term political. But it is an incredibly risky plan, one that could drive the economy into deeper problems than we've seen if it fails to improve like he hopes. There are better ways, one of which includes NOT SPENDING huge amounts of money and allowing the economy to work through the problems it has over time (his stimulus has had NO IMPACT on recent signs of uptick--save psychological)

This "we inherited a huge problem" line is now simply ridiculous. The extent to which they've ballooned spending and piled on the debt in order to solve a debt problem defies credulity.

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousJune 14, 2009

    MAYBE THIS WILL HELP

    "The Proposal"

    When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.



    Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.

    Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

    Therefore:

    Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.

    Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State).

    Then, reduce their staff by 25%.

    Accomplish this over the next 8 years

    (two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

    Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:

    $44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)

    $97,175,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

    $240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

    $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr)

    The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country!

    We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

    Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)

    Note:
    Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators & congress.

    Summary of opportunity:

    $ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.

    $282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.

    $150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.

    $59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.

    $37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.

    $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

    $8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)

    Big business does these types of cuts all the time.

    If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30 years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement benefits, tax payers could save a bundle.

    Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.

    IF you are happy with how Congress spends our taxes, delete this message. Otherwise, then I assume you know what to do.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJune 15, 2009

    Wow anonymous 6/14, you're a genius!
    Are you the one who actually came up with this stroke of brilliance?
    I've seen this idea in countless e-mails forwarded to me and would be tickled to know that the actual orginator of this idea is a fan of the Conservative Wahoo!

    To address your opening comment though; it wouldn't help, it's a silly idea.

    ReplyDelete