What would Obama do? He’d latch on to some focus-group-tested, easily demonized entity
d’two minute hate du jour then repeat it time and again until you’re pretty freaking sure he’s either retarded or gone daffy. It’s really all he’s got. Repeating the same tired platitude over and over. During the campaign it was some variation of “under my economic plan, 90% of working Americans will get a tax cut” or “if you like your_________, you can keep your _________.” Now he’s on to oil companies and corporate jets. Dick.
Well if it’s good enough for the POTUS it’s good enough for me. Since I don’t have ready access to taxpayer-funded focus groups we’ll just have to make do with flogging what my instincts tell me is a superb idea everyone will enjoy. How much worse could my instincts be than Obama’s anyway? Hell, I had a dog that got run over and was never quite right in the head again whose instincts I trusted more than I do Obama’s now.
Since we’re up against the debt ceiling and borrowing forty cents (I even heard $0.43 the other day) out of every dollar Washington is spending there’s a real easy way to cut spending by forty – or even forty-three percent. The 40% Solution.
I would have called it the Final Solution but some Austrian-speaking asshole already took that moniker. I’m sure someone out there will think my 40% Solution is a thousand times worse. I’m looking at you, Bernie Sanders.
You can’t spend what you don’t have. Not when you’re living paycheck-to-paycheck you can’t. You budget or you go without. Sometimes both. Generations of politicians have run up America’s credit cards past their limits and it’s time for the people who enabled them to pay their fair share. That should be popular, right?
The Forty Percent Solution.
But wait, you say, the federal government can’t possibly just all-of-a-sudden spend 40% less than it does now? Think of the suffering! Oh the humanity!!
This table is poached from Wikipedia so you know it must be accurate:
- 2012 United States federal budget – $3.7 trillion (submitted 2011 by President Obama)
- 2011 United States federal budget – $3.8 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
- 2010 United States federal budget – $3.6 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
- 2009 United States federal budget – $3.1 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
- 2008 United States federal budget – $2.9 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
- 2007 United States federal budget – $2.8 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
- 2006 United States federal budget – $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
- 2005 United States federal budget – $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
- 2004 United States federal budget – $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
- 2003 United States federal budget – $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
- 2002 United States federal budget – $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
- 2001 United States federal budget – $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
- 2000 United States federal budget – $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
- 1999 United States federal budget – $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
- 1998 United States federal budget – $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
- 1997 United States federal budget – $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
- 1996 United States federal budget – $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)
Knock 43% off the current $3,800,000,000,000 budget and you’ve got $2,166,000,000,000 to spend – just like back in the dark age of 2002-2004. Ye Gods! Why didst thou forsake us? Who can forget the persistent, staggering 6% unemployment in 2003? The horror.
Heck, I’d even go back to 1996 if I could. You can’t keep Chris Mathews’ leg from tingling when if you mention the Clinton economy, so let’s start by bring back 1996’s federal budget. We should. Probably have a few hundred billion left over to pay down some debt for a change.
Kids, this is our last, best chance to bust some balls on spending. We’re already boned even if there was a balanced budget amendment effective tomorrow. The government needs to start spending not just less, but less than the revenue they’re commandeering. We need surpluses and there’s no more blood to be squeezed out of our current turnip of an economy.
When you’re boned you might as well go out like Blutarski. We might as well blow it up now rather than kicking the can down the road. Not a pleasant thought for those who were planning on dying and leaving their kids to wander a post-implosion wasteland, I’m sure. But Americans let themselves be seduced by politicians’ promises – promises the politicians knew could never be fulfilled. It’s time to pay the fiddler.
Were things really that bad in 1999? I’m sure Americans can find a way to make do with the same amount of government we had had in 1998. Forever. The bureaucracy we had in 1998 should be more than enough for us to squeak by, thank you.
I’ve got to be honest with you. Other than the frotteurist’s dream that is the TSA I can’t think of a single reason I should be paying over 100% more for the federal government I’m getting today vs. 1998.
If 40% is just too much to contemplate then maybe a small debt increase and a 35% cut. Once you’re past the stage where Band-Aids help you do have to loosen a tourniquet every now and again. But the bleeding must be stopped.
Businesses have to cut back when money’s tight. Families cut back when times are tough. Why not Washington D.C.?
Fifty-seven/forty-three or fight!