For years, I, like many others, have maintained
that if our government were run like a business, we'd all be
better off. I've recently had to change my mind about that, as
it's become quite obvious that government IS being operated like
business, a failing one. But unlike most failing businesses,
government just puts more money into play, raises revenues by
raising taxes (the equivalent of raising prices on products), and
we have no choice but to pay the price (whereas with a business,
their sales can, and usually, go down when prices go up). They've
set up the IRS and other agencies to ensure that the increases
are paid. No business could possibly stay in operation by going
into deeper and deeper debt without filing for bankruptcy, but
government doesn't seem to care about that, they just borrow and
print more money. To exemplify that, take a look at this
chart.
One principal of business is that it must create
and maintain a profit, without which it is supposed to fail. That
is until now, when our government has decided there are
businesses that are too valuable, or too large, to fail. Now our
government has taken up the operation of businesses, which I
believe will give those particular businesses an unfair advantage
when bidding on government supplies, not to mention that it
destroys the "fair trade practices" and nationalizes those and
other related businesses, GM and its suppliers, for example,
along with many of our banks. Nationalizing business in the USSR
certainly didn't work, so why would we believe it will work
here?
Let's take the president's new budget as an
example of government overrunning its control. $1.5 trillion more
than what's coming in, and the doubling of our National Debt in
just a matter of a few years, a debt that it took over 200 years
to get to the size it is now. If you tried to live 60% over your
income, how long do you think it would be before your creditors
began taking your possessions away? That's what I thought, almost
immediately. So how does our government think they can continue
to overspend? In a short answer, as long as they can continue to
get away with it! On 5 August, 1997, our Congress passed and
Clinton signed into law the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, but to
no apparent avail. Prior to that, the "The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Pub.
L. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Pub.L. 99-177, title II, s December
12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1038, 2 U.S.C. § 900) and Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Pub.L.
100-119, title I, Sept. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 754, 2 U.S.C. §
900) (both often known as Gramm-Rudman) were, according to U.S.
Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, 'the first binding constraint
imposed on federal spending, and its spending caps have become
part of every subsequent U.S. budget. Together with a rapidly
growing economy it produced the first balanced federal budget in
a quarter of a century.' (Pub. L. 99-177, title II, s December
12, 1985, 99 Stat. 1038, U.S.C. § 900) and Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Pub.L.
100-119, title I, Sept. 29, 1987, 101 Stat. 754, 2 U.S.C. §
900) (both often known as Gramm-Rudman) were, according to U.S.
Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, "the first binding constraint
imposed on federal spending, and its spending caps have become
part of every subsequent U.S. budget. Together with a rapidly
growing economy it produced the first balanced federal budget in
a quarter of a century.'"
Unfortunately, those acts were found to be
unconstitutional, and Congress enacted a reworked version of the
law in 1987. It still provided no help in controlling the ever
increasing spending of our government. Even though "The Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990 (Pub.L. 101-508, title XIII; 104 Stat.
1388-573; codified as amended at scattered sections of 2 U.S.C.
& 15 U.S.C. § 1022) was enacted by Congress as title
XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 to enforce
the deficit reduction accomplished by that law and revise the
budget control process of the Federal Government. The Act created
two new budget control processes: a set of caps on
annually-appropriated spending, and a 'pay-as-you-go' or 'PAYGO'
process for entitlements and taxes. The law departed from the
fixed deficit targets of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, and imposed no
penalty if the deficit for a given year grew outside the Office
of Management and Budget 'Snapshot or deficit estimate, provided
this budget growth was out of Congress' control." The problem
with these pieces of legislation? They fail to control, or
"balance" these budgets when it comes to "off-budget" spending,
commonly used by both Congress and the president as
"discretionary" spending or "set operational costs" and "cost
overruns". Also not included are "new" programs without previous
spending or operational cost records. A classic example of that
is HR 1388, or the GIVE Act, which establishes several new
bureaucracies and gives several existing ones new powers, and
funding.
So how do we get government to shape up and
control spending? It certainly won't be easy, as the bureaucrats
will put up a huge fight over it, having forgotten that they work
for us, not the other way around. It seems to escape them that
government jobs don't create revenues, they use them and create a
bigger need for more money, usually raised with higher taxes. I
realize many believe that Obama's promise not to raise taxes on
those making under $250k a year was a good thing, and sounded
good. That is until he changed it to $200k a year, then Biden
announced it was really $150k a year. And that $8 a week most are
getting in additional spending money sure does go a long way,
doesn't it? Yeah, right. Have you also noticed that the prices of
everything we buy are slowing slipping upward, and that most of
the reason is because of higher taxes on businesses? Take that
300% tax increase on tobacco products, or the new "carbon tax",
etc., etc. Yes, indeed, people, we are going to get a real break
from taxes, aren't we? And if you believe that, I've got a
tropical island for sale just off the coast of Alaska.
But back to the subject at hand, controlling
government spending, and figuring out a way to pay off both the
National Deficit AND the National Debt. Since it's very obvious
that an act of Congress won't get it done, it will take one of
two things, or both, to accomplish it. A Balanced Budget
Amendment to our Constitution with very specific language stating
that the Federal Government CANNOT spend more than it takes in
via taxes, tariffs or any other form of income (government
leases, etc.) in any fiscal year, including funding old as well
as new programs, and that it must allocate 10% of all revenues
toward debt retirement of our National Debt. In addition, all
social programs must be turned over to the respective states for
management and control, which will take some legislative work
from the state legislatures. Every state has its own form of HHS,
which are funded primarily by both Federal and state monies. The
monies received from the Feds are just recycled from taxes and
revenues they receive from the states, and the citizens of those
states, after they skim off 20-30%. Wouldn't it just be simpler,
and more effective, if the states collected that money, and/or it
was returned to the states intact, and in full? As it is, several
states receive much more than they send in, which is an
inequitable situation at best.
The first objection to this Balanced Budget
Amendment is on taxes, and the concept that the Feds will just
raise taxes higher to ensure they don't have to cut anything. I
have previously felt that all Amendments must be separated and
stand on their own, but this single objection warrants an
addition to any Balanced budget Amendment, a "Fair Tax" or
"Consumption Tax" which limits how much the Feds can receive via
taxes and tariffs, not to mention that it will accomplish a
blossoming economy by ensuring that those who spend the most, pay
the most. In analyzing how to best make it equitable for all, we
must realize that there will have to be concessions made for the
poor and those on limited or fixed incomes. This could be
accomplished by continuing to utilize the IRS, but more as a
distribution point than a collection point, though the
collections would still be channeled through them when taxes are
collected at the point of sale. By initiating a simple formula
based on annual income and family size, and returning all or a
portion of the monies spent by those who qualify for a refund on
a quarterly basis, none of those who would qualify would get hurt
while those who do not qualify would be paying their share. And
since no one would receive more than they spent, no matter the
size of their family or how low their income, those who do pay
wouldn't be donating or subsidizing anyone else. Additionally, it
must be proven that one is here legally before they could receive
any refund. That way, those who are here without authorization
would be contributing, but not taking away. Yes, it would require
that EVERYONE produce proof one time, and only one time, that
they are either native born, naturalized, or are here on a
student or work visa.
The basis of this entire concept is that
government should be operated like a non-profit organization,
which is what they are supposed to be in the first place. If they
can't spend more than they get, and we are the donors that keep
them operating, it would then be fruitless for them to continue
to masquerade as our protectors and benefactors when the opposite
was intended by our Founding Fathers when the Constitution was
crafted. It's all beginning with movements throughout the state
legislatures with the passage of declarations of sovereignty
according to the Tenth Amendment, and with additional
declarations of states control regarding the Second Amendment
according to both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Montana has
already passed and signed into law their gun control defiant
legislation (HB
246, with Texas and Utah hot on their heels with similar or
identical measures. If we support those legislatures in their
actions, and encourage our own legislatures to follow suit,
Congress might begin to get the idea that we Americans are sick
and tired or over-taxation, over-regulation, and the over-growing
of our government beyond reasonable limits.
WE must begin NOW to take back our government,
while we still can by: continuing the TEA party movement; calling
for a Balanced Budget Amendment WITH a "Consumption Tax" AND a
National Debt retirement plan built in; encouraging all the
states to exercise their sovereign rights; maintaining our rights
and freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United
States, and the Constitutions of each State; supporting
candidates who will exercise fiscal constraint and
responsibility; and encourage our legislatures to call for a
Constitutional Convention if Congress continues down the path
they have chosen.
WAKE UP, AMERICA!!
WE'RE BEING SOLD DOWN THE RIVER!!
And without a paddle one, the government has
regulated them out of existence, and they control the canoes.
Let's all work to stop the wholesaling of our liberties and the
enslaving of our citizens with taxation, debt and the loss of our
basic freedoms!!
ALL PHOTOS, GRAPHICS, CLIPART
AND LOGOS USED ON THIS SITE ARE THE PROPERTY OF THEIR SPECIFIC
OWNERS AND ARE USED WITH FULL PERMISSION OF THOSE OWNERS. A
NUMBER OF PHOTOS USED AS BACKGROUNDS AND CLIPART BELONG TO THE
OWNER OF THE CHEROKEE PARKS SITE AND MAY NOT BE COPIED OR USED IN
ANY WAY WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION. PLEASE CLICK THE
EMAIL BUTTON ON THE HOME PAGE TO REQUEST PERMISSION FOR USAGE OF
PHOTOS, GRAPHICS AND CLIPART DISPLAYED ON THIS SITE, OR GO TO THE
LINKS PAGE FOR USAGE REQUESTS REGARDING LOGOS, CLIPART, PHOTOS
AND GRAPHICS FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS.
