========
Dummmmmmmmmb da dumb dumb
Dummmmmmmmmb da dumb dumb
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmb!
========
The story you are about to read is true. Facts are facts. Congressmen and Presidents are generally shortsighted, self-serving, cowards whose top three job priorities are to get reelected, to get relected, and . . . . to get reelected.
=========
It was the evening of Saturday, 2 October 2010 – the second day of the federal 2011 fiscal year (FY11). The chief in Los Angeles had sent me to Washington DC to discover the facts about the FY10 budget.
What I had discovered so far made all of the District of Columbia stink with self serving motivations and voter apathy. As the LAPD officer with the DCPD interviewing the DUI CI CPA with the MD in STDs at the OTB on K Street, three things had become clear:
First, the federal government, during the FY10 fiscal year had collected, from all sources, a total of about $2.33326 trillion.
Second, it had spent approximately this identical amount, $2.2568 trillion, just on non-discretionary spending alone – things like:
· Social Security ($754.1 billion)
· Medicare ($457.8 billion)
· Medicaid ($289.7 billion)
· Other mandated spending programs ($755.2 billion)
o Unemployment and Income Security ($257.7 billion)
o Food and Nutrition Assistance ($ 95.1 billion)
o Housing ($ 57.0 billion)
o Education (mandated) ($148.6 billion)
o Federal Retirement and Disability ($122.3 billion)
(NOT included in Social Security)
o Miscellaneous Mandates ($ 74.5 billion)
Third, it had spent approximately $1.2432 trillion on discretionary spending – things like:
· Defense ($847.2 billion)
· Interest Paid on Debts ($196.2 billion)
· Transportation ($ 92.0 billion)
· Protection ($ 53.4 billion)
· General Government ($ 24.7 billion)
· Other Spending ($ 29.7 billion)
Actually, the information contained in this third point had been conveyed in the afternoon, as the CI and I sat on a bench on the north side of the National Mall and watched the sun set behind the Lincoln Memorial. I had made my normal inquiries into the details of each of these categories, such as:
Q: How much is spent on non-military, non-postal service, federal employee wages, salaries, and benefits?
A: In excess of $60 billion
Q: How much is spent on federal building leases, renovations, utilities, custodial services and maintenance services?
A: In excess of $60 billion
Q: How much do you believe that President Obama wants to cut out of the federal budget during FY11?
A: Approximately $60 billion
Q: If the Republicans, with their Tea Party agenda, garner a majority in the House, Senate, or both in the forthcoming elections, how much do you believe that they will want to cut out of the federal budget during FY11?
A: In excess of $60 billion, but less than $100 billion
The answers were getting monotonous, so I figured that I was missing something that the CI wanted me to deduce on my own. What was clear is that the federal government had greatly overspent its income. A little mental arithmetic convinced me that the federal deficit was near $1.2 trillion.
There seemed no use in trying to trim spending by $60 billion, when the deficit in FY10 was $1.2 trillion and when the CI had indicated that the deficit in FY11 was currently estimated to be $1.6 trillion. That’s like peeing in the ocean.
I did recall that Exxon, arguably the world’s largest non-governmental business had a gross income of about $53 billion on net revenues of $383 billion. Our federal government, with over 1.4 million non-military, non-postal employees dwarfed Earth’s largest oil company. Incredible!
Really, $60 billion is only 5% of 1.2 trillion! What were Obama, the Republicans, and the Democrats all thinking?
If the CI was correct, then we have an idiot for a President; and we were on the road to electing a bunch of cowards to Congress.
Then it hit me. If our representatives were to balance the budget without raising taxes, then they had an infinite number of choices between two extremes.
On the one hand, they could cut all discretionary funding, a little more than$1.2 trillion, while leaving all non-discretionary funding untouched. On the other hand, they could cut the $1.2 trillion deficit out of non-discretionary funding, while leaving all discretionary funding untouched. This latter option would eliminate more than 53% of all mandated disbursements.
After chatting with the CI about these thoughts, I could tell that he felt his job was done. I would enter these conclusions in my reports, knowing that neither was either practical or realizable. However, I had seen the light.
This nation was in serious trouble. From what I could tell, during FY10, it had overspent its revenues by 55%. Our total national debt was approaching our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This put America on the same plane as many third world countries.
It really didn’t matter what the details were. A huge chunk of spending had to be eliminated from federal operations, soon.
As the twilight developed, there was only one topic left to discuss with the CI regarding balancing the federal budget. “What do you think about raising taxes to cover this deficit?” I asked.
A moment passed. The CI was looking across to the old Smithsonian building.
“Think about this, Leonard.” he began. “If we take a married couple, earning $75,000 each, who declare a total taxable income of $131,000, the federal government is going to levy over $25,000 in income taxes on them. Now, chances are this couple will NOT be saving anything, especially if they have children.”
“That means they spend it all.” he continued. “If we take away $15,000 in mortgage payments from what the feds leave this couple, then that means they subject themselves to about $10,000 a year in sales taxes, assuming the average aggregate rate of City, County, and State sales taxes has now been raised to the range of 8% to 10%.”
“Furthermore," he drawled, “their State will probably take about 4% of their declared federal AGI. That means another $5,000 in income taxes. In addition, they will probably owe about $3,000 to $5,000 in property taxes on their house. I’ll just leave out all the other taxes that they probably pay, especially gasoline taxes.”
“Add that up for me.” he barked, now more animated since the cold was settling in.
“Sure.” I said. “Let’s see, $25 K plus $10 K plus $5 K plus $5 K is $45,000.”
“And if my division is correct, that's exactly 30% of everything this couple makes.” the CI said as he got up. “Good luck raising tax rates, Buddy.”
I got up with him; and we started walking towards the Washington Monument.
“What about if they earn less money?” I asked.
The CI seemed to be shivering so he picked up the pace, both physically and fiscally.
“OK.” he said. “They both earn $40,000. Their AGI is probably about $61,000. Uncle Sam takes $8,500. Their State takes another $2,500. Let’s say that they make $12,000 in mortgage payments and that their property taxes are $4,000. That means they spend the rest subject to sales tax. That’s. . . errrrrrrr. . . ummmmmmm. . . another $5,000.”
I couldn’t believe how fast the CI’s mind was working.
“Now, add THAT up, Cop.” he hissed through his chattering teeth.
I was ahead of him, just barely. “That’s about 24% of their income.”
“Correct, Flatfoot!” he gunned out. “And, if a couple earns $500,000 a year, and doesn’t save anything, then it’s easy to calculate that they will likely pay 40% of their gross in taxes.”
“Geeze!”, I said, winded. I stopped.
The CI disappeared into the night.
It was cold. I reached into my coat pocket for a lighter and my cigarettes. I stood there, lit one up, and inhaled.
Then I threw it down on the ground and squashed it underfoot. There wasn’t going to be enough Medicare around to take care of me when I contracted lung cancer.
========
Dummmmmmmmmb da dumb dumb
Dummmmmmmmmb da dumb dumb
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmb!
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Sean Fenley
Max Frank
Uncle Chris
Deborah Young
Peter Breschard
Jeana Morris
Salon.com
Comments
Rated.
I live in Arizona. Is some of that protection money protecting our borders? Should the feds be held accountable for the fact that they have failed to protect our border resulting in millions of illegal immigrants who have burdened the educational obligation of our state to the point that I seriously believe native born Arizonians are suffering reverse discrimination.
We have to cut spending, I agree. However, I would like to see the politicians who put us here prosecuted. What they have done is far bigger than Enron.
Rated
Thanks, as always, for reading and commenting. It is uncertain whether I write well enough, or with the correct attitude, to gain an EP around here. . . . However, I am always willing to join your lonely voice in this unfriendly wilderness.
Jambo,
You must be correct. If there has been a fraud perpetrated upon Americans by our federal government, then it dwarfs Enron, for sure.
We are in a world of hurt, no doubt about that. However, one 'out' the federal government has (believe it or not) is to NOT pay you Social Security, for example, after you have paid in under FICA.
Absolutely true. . . . .
The Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that "entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right". Hence, there would be no fraud if this alternative was selected.
This is the same 'out' that the federal government has in not fulfilling its obligations regarding its intruments of debt. The government could simply decide not to honor its notes, warrants, and bonds; or it could decide simply to print $14 trillion and pay off in diluted cash.
Of course, choosing any one of theses alternatives, in either example, would end America as we now know it. The harder choices, the choices we must all make when balancing our own budgets, are the ones our congressmen and Presidents have not yet had the courage to make.
The time is close when there will be no alternative but to make these choices. In the event neither Congress nor the President makes an appropriately complete choice, or fails to make the correct choice, of fails to make any choice, the default will, again, be the end of America as we now know it.
Time for a tea party, and not the kind Ms. Palin has in mind.
To extent you can close your eyes while reading this, I want you to visualize a country whose government never took anything from its citizens in exchange for an implied promise of an entitlement. No one took from your salary under FICA; and, in turn, no one promised you that the government would provide for you during any disability or retirement. No one took from your salary under FUTA; and, in turn, no one promised you that the government would provide for you during any period of unemployment. No one took from your salary for Medicare; and, in turn, no one promised you that the government would provide for you during any period of illness. Same for hunger; same for housing; etc.,.
The absolute result of all of this would be that, when there are no entitlement programs, the arguments about them, their costs, their frauds, and their oppression, as we know these consequences today, would cease. We might always discuss what makes a better society, one with such collectivism, or one without such collectivism. The background of such debates will always be that humankind lived millions of years without governments addressing such social ills; and thus there is ample reason to believe that our species would survive without such governance now.
The second absolute result of all of this would be that you would have more money in your pocket to provide for your needs, as you saw fit. You could better provide for your own retirement, or not. . . . You could better provide for your own healthcare, or not. . . . You could better provide for your own food, clothing, shelter, etc., or not. . . . . Those choices would be much more yours than they are now.
The clear consequence would be that these choices would not made for you, to one degree or the other, by the government. When the government enters these matters, it takes from us some measure of our freedom of choice, by taking from us the treasure with which we otherwise would have had to make such choices. Again, this refers to individual ‘entitlements’. It does not refer to the ‘general welfare’ of the country as a whole.
Our federal government should certainly do some things for us with our tax dollars. It should defend our country and secure our borders. It should coordinate things like an interstate highway systems and interstate commerce. It should manage federal assets including lands, natural resources, and, to a certain extent, the ecological environments, both flora and fauna, in which we live.
However, when we become more responsible for our outcomes, our persons, and our own communities, then we become more bound to each other. When one in our community suffers, then, without the government option, it becomes incumbent upon each of us to support those who are in need. Local charity is always more effective than the government charity which treats the citizens of Wyoming (average population density 3 per square mile) the same as the citizens of New York City (average population density 27,000 per square mile).
Without explaining all the details, my hope is that you see that THIS mechanism regulates in favor of a MORE egalitarian society. Without the government option, it is less likely that the human spirit is corrupted by the ease with which one is fed, when one is hungry; sheltered, when homeless; doctored, when ill; supported, when disabled; supported, when retired; or clothed, when naked. Government facilitation of the solutions to these problems leads to huge inequities, huge costs, huge shortfalls in expectations, huge fraud (on both sides), and huge numbers of those who believe they are entitled to something at the expense of others.
Socialism is, as Communists in the USSR and Cuba, European socialists, and benefactors all over the world have discovered, a self-fulfilling prophesy – of misery for all. Winston Churchill, a man I admire, had a couple of quotations on this point.
In one case, he said:
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
In another, he said:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Finally, he said:
“The length of this document defends it well against the risk of its being read.”
. . . so, I will stop here. . .
Thanks for commenting, again, . . .and. . . your patience during the foregoing rant. . . . . .
Yours,
Chris