Monday, May 01, 2006

Fed Debt Solution

People have talked about it before, but it has happened in Puerto Rico. The government was shut down due to lack of money. Think about this: if our legislators had to take a salary of $0 and no benefits every time the U.S. budget went into the red it would never go their again...ever. I know things happen sometimes. The big push to capture Osama, hurricane Katrina (and Rita), the tsunami. Of course they are not responsible for balooning the national deficit. Huge tax cuts to the wealthy of us, an irresponsible war, a mess of a department in Homeland Security are among the real reasons we are in debt. Now, there is quite a bit of pork still in government, and there probably always will be, but by holding the government responsible by hitting their wallets (even if the wealthy senators don't care, their aids just might, and I wonder how much can be accomplished then), then maybe we can trim some of it and find out real priorities as well. You want the millionare investors to pay less in taxes, ok, sure, no school for Johnny, no meds for grandma, and the highway construction is going to have to be stalled there. Maybe if people were really given a choice between education and $300 savings per year in taxes they would take education. Maybe if people were told that the government could take care of health care for an extra $500 per year and insurance would no longer be needed (saving families at least $1k/yr) they would vote to have their taxes increased. I mean people vote to build stadiums for athletic teams with tax money (this is so wrong), so why wouldn't they ok a specific tax hike?

Specifically they would be voting for people who had no bones about saying they would increase taxes. So let's get back to that talk that brought the GOP into office in '94: the ballenced budget ammendment. That's right, it was a GOP idea, that the government would have to maintain a ballanced budget. If they wanted to cut taxes, they would have to cut spending. If they needed to increase spending (say in time of need/war) then taxes would have to increase. What kind of unpatriotic American would say no to a tax increase that would allow our government to properly equip our troops or that would help evacuees from New Orleans? Too bad we know the answer: a friend of Bush.

No comments: