Charlie's One-year Plan

According to data from the World Bank, the 2010 Gross Domestic Product for the United States of America was 14.5824 trillion dollars. By the end of 2011 the national debt for the U.S.A. will roam in the neighborhood of $16.8 trillion. As you probably know, the GDP represents the value of every product and service generated in the country for that year. So, it is obvious that our debt exceeds the value of everything produced in our country by every company and person for an entire year. Clearly this is not an economically healthy situation unless you are a scofflaw who intends to default. There are numerous plans floating in the air that purport to deal with our abysmal debt situation so I thought….”Why not me?”

Every other plan that has been suggested has some glaring flaws. They may enter a “glide path” to solvency which means, in fact, more debt, increased spending and larger government. Even the golden-boy guru of the GOP, Paul Ryan, introduced a plan that includes all of those weaknesses. Senator Pat Toomey has the sanest approach from among the political class. His proposal would have generated a small surplus by the tenth year of its enactment. The profligate Senate with the uninspired leadership of Harry Reid voted to reject the Toomey measure. That figures. Why endorse a serious attempt to remedy the situation? It would be totally out of character for the “greatest deliberative body of the world,” and for a gaggle of 100 self-serving ego maniacs.

Charlie’ One-Year Plan

As with most plans that have some legitimacy, mine has more than one step. The first is to dedicate the entire national GDP to debt retirement for one year. This plan would include the shared sacrifice that President Obama continually demands because there would be NO resources for food, fuel and other staples available to any citizen, any resident or any visitor in the United States of America. So if we can tough it out for one complete year, we will have nearly enough money to pay off the entire debt. But wait, there’s more.

How do we operate the government if our entire production income is dedicated to debt you might ask? It’s simple. The first thing we do is categorize all government beneficiaries and recipients as “employees.” In one swift blow we have eliminated every entitlement, welfare and subsidy program in the federal portfolio. We then tax our new employees just like the government loves to tax everyone else, and we create a new revenue stream for operating the overgrown glob of government. Of course, we’ll need more money to pay our new “employees.” Isn’t it great that government works so well?

Annexing Canada would be the next logical step in my one-year plan to fiscal solvency. The Canadian GDP of $1.574 trillion would cover most of our essential government services. Our friendly neighbors to the north would have to share in our 52-week sacrifice because if we absorbed their entire national product, no one could eat, drive or participate in normal daily life. Everyone knows that a robust United States is oh so good for Canada’s well being so asking them to share in our mutual misery shouldn’t be too difficult. Obviously, our obligation to the environment and the health of the planet would require that we shut down Canadian oil production. That would have a negative impact on GDP so we must seek another source for generating the income to operate the government.

Invading Mexico may seem extreme at first blush, but it is the most logical piece of our fixit puzzle. There is an amazing symmetry to our invading Mexico because many of their citizens have been invading us for decades. Also by absorbing their GDP of $1.040 trillion, we may recover a portion of the funds that have been systematically sent to Mexican residents by their relatives in the United States. Again, we would prohibit petroleum extraction which would diminish the GDP significantly but the remainder would provide just enough with our previous amounts to fund the government.

Some might argue that my plan would lead to a starving and impoverished country after one year, but I would counter with “all the other plans would yield results that are similar and would take ten years! My plan would also eliminate most of the debt whereas ALL the other proposals increase it.” My plan provides the statist’s dream that the career politicians have been so diligently seeking. Only big government is funded, all energy production is eliminated and the people are totally dependent on government “compassion” and government jobs for their existence.

Satire, sarcasm and cynicism have been tools that I have used in the past, and I may have employed them again. It’s up to you to decide. The nature of your reactions or responses will determine for me the height of your discernment and the depth of your intellect. This one-year plan is as sensible and as realistic as the ones proposed by the career politicians….and the pain wouldn’t last so long.

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com or www.littlestuff-minoosha.com

 

Default, Dear Brutus.

Default,” Dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” Shakespeare might be annoyed that I borrowed and corrupted his line from Julius Caesar, but he’s dead. “Default” is the power word of the week as statists scramble to coerce Congress into supporting an increase in the national debt ceiling limit. The dirty truth is that default is not a Constitutional option. Current monthly income for the federal government is just under $200 billion. The primary obligation for the Treasury is to pay the debt service first out of any collected proceeds. At current interest rates, the monthly cost for interest on the $14.4 trillion obligation is slightly less than $30 billion. In addition, the secondary Constitutional obligation is payment of Social Security benefits due to the hypothetical, mythical “trust fund.” Those payments run about $60 billion. It is clear, therefore, that the two Constitutionally-mandated disbursements will leave a balance of roughly $110 billion in the Treasury for prioritizing other outlays and payments such as military pay and civilian work-force payroll. The threats of impending doom, and starving grannies are gross misrepresentations…..lies.

If, for any reason, Obama or Geithner delay the Constitutionally-required disbursements for political purposes, they will be in contempt and should be subject to impeachment. Whatever they choose to do, legal or otherwise, the debt ceiling is a two-edged sword for the nation. While it is true that federal cash flow is sufficient to satisfy Constitutional and legal requirements, the massive size of the debt makes it politically difficult to lower taxes enough to generate an economic boom. Some will continue to argue that taxes must remain at present levels (or even higher) to raise funds for debt retirement. Given the history of debt service in the United States, this may be a bogus argument driven primarily by ideological considerations. No principle payments have been applied to the national debt for 51 years, so it seems rather remote that the government would feel compelled to pay down the outstanding balance. Certainly debt retirement would be beneficial for the fiscal health of the country because every uptick in interest rates would require billions of dollars more from the budget.

The debt ceiling and the debt itself are constraining in another way. It may create an artificial endorsement of the status quo on the spending side of the ledger. The political class may perceive the debt limit as defining the outer parameters of the spending matrix. They may convince themselves that as long as they stay within the defined limit, their appropriations are justified and defensible…no matter what the value, constitutionality or justification for a particular program or line item may be. A similar concern is that with the artifice of the debt ceiling in place, career politicians will be continually seeking to increase or looking for ways to circumvent it. Pet programs represent political promises for favored constituent groups. The political class will be fearful of returning the government to its Constitutional structure. They will fear the retribution of recipient groups who have become accustomed to government benefits. Concurrent with addressing the debt crisis and drastically reducing federal spending, the nation, people and politicians, must unite for the “weaning of America.” We must insist and enable the drying of the Nanny teat.

The kabuki dance that is taking place in Washington at this time is merely a small beginning toward what must be done. Systematic and reasonable spending reductions must be implemented to prevent a repeat of the current fiasco. The cuts should be vertical reductions with entire departments, programs and agencies being eliminated. Horizontal cuts are easier because they will not generate the furious responses of the affected agencies and their constituencies, but they are not effective and enduring. Merely shaving dollars from the top of every aspect of government leaves the monstrous apparatus in place to fight for restoration of money in the next and all subsequent budgets. It might be useful (and proper) for Congress to become familiar with the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States. Even if they ignore their legal limits, they may at least attempt to fund only governmental functions that are relatively close to meeting Constitutional muster. I can hope, can’t I? We the people should commit to allowing some favorite programs to be cast aside if we are to work our way out of this fiscal maze. Now is the time for that “shared sacrifice” that the progressive-statists are so fond of demanding. Every American must be willing to sacrifice some program or agency on the altar of budgetary sanity and economic reality. Shared sacrifice, indeed, but I suspect the lefty crowd will battle openly…and underhandedly every attempt to restore order to our nation’s financial chaos.

Our situation is dire. Personally, I’m unconcerned if the Chinese pass us as the preeminent economic power in the world. It suggests that their billions of people may be on the cusp of experiencing some semblance of individual liberty. I do desire that we put our fiscal house in order so that liberty and prosperity will be available for all of our people. Default, dear Brutus, can be brutal. Correction will be politically, economically and socially disruptive. Each of us must be dedicated to the task. Et tu?

Comment:  cearlwriting@hotmail.com    or   www.littlestuff-minoosha,blogspot.com