The Obama Administration has proposed a budget of $3.6 trillion for FY 2010 which starts October 1, 2009. It is $1.84 trillion more than the government will take in from all sources.
The numbers are so large it is difficult for ordinary citizens to comprehend them, but almost every citizen worries about where the numbers might take us. Most of us see the deficit numbers piling up and worry that inflation will likely be used to pay for most of the spending we are doing today.
$3.6 trillion.
It is enough to take your breath away no matter your political leanings. Democrats will tell you it is a lot of money and it is necessary to (1) meet the demand for government programs and services from the people (everything from defending the shores to making sure beef is safe to eat), (2) restore some semblance of normalcy to the economy (stabilize the banks, secure the insuring entities), and (3) invest in our future in ways only government can. I repeat: …in ways only government can.
In short, there is a role for government in our lives. Dismiss any who say we need less government because it is too late. What we need, what we ask for, what we demand cannot be done with less government. If you know someone who believes otherwise, tell them to “get real.”
$3.6 trillion.
That IS a lot of money. Surely, we don’t need all of it. Surely, there is waste we can cut out and balance our federal budget. Why can’t we just cut those crazy programs at universities that do useless research like the one studying the sex lives of Australian slimy toads? When someone comes up and starts talking about such, I hope you will tell them, as politely as you can, to “please stop.” Such conversations, while they may feel good to the one complaining, do not reflect even a basic understanding of where we are….or, more importantly, where we are going.
Here’s where we are: Fully 65 percent of the federal budget is COMMITTED to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Interest on the National Debt, and Defense of the nation. That’s two of every three dollars – gone. Can’t be touched. You wouldn’t want to cut a dollar from any if you had the responsibility. Obama does have the responsibility and he was able to cut only $17 billion from the Pentagon’s budget for next year. He cut the entire F-22 Raptor program and other major line items but only cut $17 billion from the DOD budget.
OK, OK… so, two of three dollars are committed; what about the remaining dollar?
That last dollar supports every agency and department in the Executive and Judicial branches of government as well as a tiny amount for the Legislative branch. That last dollar goes to Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Justice, Labor, State, Energy, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, NASA, Veterans, Treasury, and Congress.
The deficit for the coming year will be around $1.84 trillion, according to a new projection released by the White House today, and that’s more than half of the $3.6 trillion budget proposed.
So, what’s a responsible government to do? It can slow down the rate of growth in entitlement programs, for one thing. It only takes political will. That means you and I have to give our elected officials the freedom to address these issues responsibly without threatening them with dismissal at the next election. It also means we have to give government the freedom to do some risk taking on our behalf, as the Obama Administration is attempting to do by investing in health care reform (control the rate of growth in health costs while improving health care), investing in new energy sources (lead us to energy independence), investing in environmental innovations (slow climate change and improve the quality of air we breathe), invest in infrastructure (improve roads, bridges, transportation, and communication, to name a few).
In other words, we can pay for the deficits of today with inflation if we do nothing or we can pay for the deficits by growing the economy in real terms through investing in the full potential that exists in the human mind. I don’t know about you, but I prefer the latter.
6 comments:
When you say, "That means you and I have to give our elected officials the freedom to address these issues responsibly without threatening them with dismissal at the next election." you are implying the that we have somehow restricted our elected leaders freedom. How have we done that? I dont feel like I have done that.
That also seems to suggest that we should just step back and let them do what they want not what we want/need, as the only way someone is removed from office is if the people they represent do not believe that person is representing their interests anymore. If you remove the threat of dismissal then what incentive do they have to do as you, the people they represent, want or need?
Let me try to answer both of your comments/questions: I worked on Capitol Hill for many years and I can't tell you how many times I met with constituents who said, "If your boss votes (for)or(against) this issue, I will personally see to it that he is defeated at the polls next year." Threats, that's the restriction I'm talking about. The responsibility of every citizen is to vote for the candidate they trust and let him do his job. Refrain from voting him out on the basis of one vote. However, if you don't like the majority of his decisions, then, by all means, vote to dismiss him. In a representative republic, he or she is not there to vote the fickle weathervane of public opinion. Remember that. He is to read, study, learn and vote his best judgment in your interest. Your job is to let him do his job without threats, knowing that you will not always agree with everything he does, and believing he will always act in your best interest. If you do not believe that is how your representative will act, then you ought to vote for someone else ... or, if you are a confirmed cynic, not vote at all.
Let me ask this question: if your representaive voted to restrict the rate of growth in social security payments, would you vote to turn him out, even though deep inside, you knew it was the fiscally responsible vote for him to cast. Would you? Most people over 65 today would vote to turn him out to protect their selfish interest. The American people ARE in charge and they must tell their rep to do what is best for the country and let the chips fall where they may. I don't know many willing to do that.
So you were referring to direct threats not the implied threat inherent in this representative republic, I was hoping that is what your meant. As far as your question, I am personally of the opinion that you must allow the elected officials to govern for if they were to ask our opinion everytime we would have a democracy, so no I would not vote him out based on that alone.
I know many members of Congress who do not understand representative government and have said to me, "I always wait to hear what my constitutents think and then I vote the way most of them want me to vote." Of course, that's not democracy, that's mob rule. Why elect a Congress? Why not put a button on the kitchen table and let everyone simply vote as they feel on that day at that minute without any further information (possibly only what Rush Limburger has told them). This republic would be finished. No, your elected representative owes you more. If he doesn't know that, you need to replace him.
I completely agree and yes a pure democracy is essentially mob rule.
Post a Comment