This week’s symbolic show of proposing symbolic cuts will never pass the Senate and will never be signed by the President and everyone in DC knows that. Even if it passed, it’s less than a 2% cut from what is an increase larger than that.
Consider this alternative – pass a continuing resolution at 80% of last year’s funding levels and raise the debt ceiling only by what it takes to fund the government at 80%. Nothing is off the table.
Any agency that can’t reduce its size by 20% has to request the house to make a supplemental appropriation, and that bill can then be used to add on the “conditions”. Force the government employees to toss each other overboard.
No default, no government shutdown – unless the Senate or President veto 80% funding, in which case they bear the responsibility. It’s time to use the power and stop playing defense.
The vast majority of current politicians are what I call “chickified politicians”. Their nature is to please everyone, if at all possible.
Starting in the ’50s, Liberals lined up to ask for funding for Liberal institutions which employed Liberals (non-profits, academia, social engineering programs, unions, lawyers, etc.). The yearly funding levels were increased at an average of about 2% per year by the “chickified politicians”, because that was the maximum amount of increase that would go relatively unnoticed. Both the requesters and taxpayers were kept relatively happy.
Taxes were systematically raised, on average, by the same 2% per year, and a little borrowing was added each year to bribe the taxpayers with a growing welfare state. The borrowing took the forms of bonds, inflation, and unfunded liabilities.
When the total yearly governmental tax load reached about 40% of GDP, it was no longer possible to raise taxes without irritating the tax payers, and a shift to more borrowing occurred, mostly in the form of greater unfunded liabilities.
This lengthy process created an exponential growth of government. Government cost one percent of GDP when the country was first created. Total governmental cost was about 12% of GDP in the ’30s. Pre-Obama, on-budget, total governmental cost was about 40% of GDP, but; regulatory costs, off-budget expenses, and unfunded liabilities are not included in this 40%.
This exponential process can be graphed as an increasing exponential curve of governmental expenditure, as a percentage of GDP versus time, rising upward toward a horizontal line located at 100% of GDP.
The standard of living for the private sector corresponds approximately to the distance between the rising exponential curve and the 100% of GDP line.
Pre-Obama, the curve of direct governmental expenditure was increasing about 2% per year, which corresponded to an increase of about 1% of GDP per year. That meant the standard of living of the private sector was decreasing by about 2% per year. But, the rate of private sector standard of living decrease was drastically accelerating (the difference between an increasing exponential curve and a fixed limit decreases faster than exponentially).
The end result was the “chickified politician” began to encounter the reality of being caught between the demands of their Liberal friends and the tax payers.
Approximately simultaneously with the arrival of Obama, the Liberals were being forced to double down to maintain the exponential growth of government, and that required borrowing to be increased dramatically (actually to 3.3 trillion dollars last year (on-budget and off-budget borrowing combined).
We are now seeing the final battle over whether exponentially growing the size of government will continue (to complete socialism), or whether the growth of the sum of on-budget, off-budget, and unfunded governmental spending will be systematically reduced to some acceptable level.
The acceptable level of total governmental expenditure is about 10% of GDP consumed by total governmental activity. This level will require the elimination of all forms of welfare. A 10% of GDP level of governmental funding can only support a justice system, an adequate military, with a little left over for relatively minor miscellaneous functions.
The 10% of GDP is the maximum, because, historically, levels approaching 20% have proven to cause long term societal deterioration ending in revolution.
You comments are considered and accurate.
What I have come to believe is that the government apparatchiks and the primary personal beneficiaries of the current redistribution of wealth scheme will not willingly give up their claims on my labor and money. The socialists and labor agitators will not back down in their demands.
I’m almost 50 years old and I have had discussions with trusted neighbors when or if to decide to leave suburbia? What (if any) supplies make sense. Many have no faith in government at all: short term (FDIC) crisis or long term (Social Fabric) crisis.
If some of the academics are to be believed then in the American Revolution of 1776 – only approx. 30% of the population actually supported the Founding Fathers… I think fewer are needed today to upset the apple cart because of the glaring imbalances in wealth, media control and fire power.
Now, wether that is the socialist government and labor forces creating an uprising to intimidate those who have faith in the constitution and ideals of the country or Patriots just plain fed up with the pissant politically correct crap that has become government WHO KNOWS ?
“It’s time to use the power and stop playing defense.” – SO CORRECT !!!
The current Repub Leaders in Congress are spineless. They are sitting ducks for the Attack Media.
In the NFL a number of teams, when ahead, switch from an agressive defense to a horrible scheme called a “Prevent Defense”. This usually has the effect of letting the other team back into the game, and maybe even allowing the other team to get ahead. I hate the Prevent Defense. I hate that the Repubs can’t seem to use the most elementary stategies to turn this around on the Dems.
My worst nightmare? McShame will be the Repubs candidate again.