Posted by John Keller
You gotta love some of the proposals tossed onto the table during the continuing deficit-reduction talks among members the U.S. Congress and the administration of President Barack Obama.
The latest proposal from the Senate's so-called "Gang of Six" senators from both parties seeks to make "$3.75 trillion in savings over 10 years" and "contains $1.2 trillion in new revenues."
First, predicting how Congress will spend money a decade in the future is like predicting the weather in 2086. Of the Democrat and Republican lawmakers who are trying to convince us now how they'll spend money in 10 years, well, many of them won't even be around then, so what do they care about commitments they make today?
If Congress were to approve such a scheme, they'll be able to hear the giggles in Washington from Kansas City. Some of those senators and representatives in 10 years will be out of office, some will be dead, a few might still be in Congress, but no one will remember by then. Long story short, 10-year spending plans in Congress are pure fantasy cooked up to placate important constituencies, and only for the time being.
If Congress is going to make meaningful cuts in federal spending, they have to do it now, this year, before the 2012 elections. Anything other than that is something akin to the guy staggering home with lipstick on his collar at 2 a.m., smelling of whiskey, and telling his wife that he was at a midnight mass.
You can't trust politicians to do two things: tell the truth, and not spend taxpayer money; it's just not in their makeup. History bears this out.
Second, I just love this government rhetoric about "new revenues." The word revenue means different things to different people. In the private sector, revenue means income that a company receives from its normal business activities, usually from the sale of goods and services to customers. More to the point, in private business revenue is earned. Not so in government.
In government, revenue refers to tax money confiscated from citizens. It's not earned, it's simply taken -- with or without the taxpayer's consent. So whenever you hear anyone in government talking about "new revenues," just substitute "tax hikes," and see how that proposal plays with you.
That's just the point, isn't it? The government is just playing with us. No wonder so many American citizens so fed up.
Yet those taxes pay for many of the Military and Aerospace contracts that keep many of us employed. Bottom line is we don't object to taxes that benefit us. None of those in Congress will need to depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any of the other "entitlements" that they are trying cut. Time to start paying for past bills for Iraq, Afghanistan, through BOTH taxes and spending cuts.
ReplyDeletePeople who feel they are not taxed enough by the current regime are free to remit their extra money to the Treasury (They take checks. Really.)
ReplyDeleteMore to the point, congress has already cut the DoD budget to the point we're barely able to respond militarily to more than one or two threats. Does anyone recall that the national gaurd is supposed to fill in for the standing military when they are deployed? And to respond to disasters at home in the US and if necessary riot control etc. I have a co-worker(happens to be a 20 yr gaurdsman) who is currently on his 5th deployment. He's been on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If our congressional "leaders" don't stop playing economic chicken it won't really matter... we'll all need to learn Mandarin. nuff said
ReplyDelete