Grinches Only Need Apply

  • user warning: Table 'tuttles.date_format_types' doesn't exist query: SELECT dft.type, dft.title, dft.locked FROM date_format_types dft ORDER BY dft.title in /home/public/sites/all/modules/date/date_api.module on line 2098.
  • user warning: Table 'tuttles.date_format_locale' doesn't exist query: SELECT format, type, language FROM date_format_locale in /home/public/sites/all/modules/date/date_api.module on line 2227.

We need to cut taxes, but we also need to cut spending. No one wants to cut spending, though, because that’s going to make someone mad.

We need a grinch.

I am all for cutting taxes. John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both showed that if you cut taxes, it actually leads to prosperity—both in the government and private sectors. George W. Bush cut taxes and managed to sustain growth even while fighting two wars, but it took its toll.

The problem was not with the tax cuts. At some point, there have to be spending cuts. Take a look at your personal budget. Now, after throwing up, what do you see? Most of us see a finite number. We can spend up to that number. Now if, for some reason, my income is decreased, I have to decrease spending accordingly. I might have to cut off the cable TV, or eat out less—or not at all—or I might even have to resort to nothing but peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, but I will have to cut back somewhere.

The next option for most of us is to seek more income. We might do that by taking on a second job, or trying to find a job that pays better than the one we’ve got. When the government seeks more income, though, it usually does this by raising taxes. When taxes are raised, that means people have less money to spend and, thus, the government actually gets less money. (And, for those idiots that think the government should only raise taxes on the corporations or the “rich”, where do they think those corporations get their money from? From us consumers. A tax on corporations is a tax on all of us who buy their goods.)

What needs to happen—and, mind you, I’m not holding my breath—is that the people in Washington need to look at the money that’s coming into the government and spend accordingly. If we don’t have the money to pay for all these things, then some of the things needs to be cut.

I figure I could balance the federal budget in one afternoon.

As much as people like to complain about how much we spend on the military, it’s actually a very small percentage of our budget—something on the order of 5 percent. I say we keep the military, because I like having a safe country. Shoot, I’d even entertain the idea of giving them a raise and better retirement benefits. We certainly need to beef up our VA hospitals.

I also like the Interstate Highway System. That’s something less than 1 percent of the budget, so we can actually double the money paid to it and be OK. Medicaire needs to be reformed, but I say we keep it.

And that’s it. My federal budget is done. I don’t see any reason for the federal government to pay for congressional salaries (let them work at home for a living), the arts (we’ll pay for what we want, thank you) or even emergency relief (the states could handle it on their own if they didn’t have to give all their money to the fed, who then tells them how to use it on the rare occasion they give some back). No national educational department, no health and human services, nothing but military, highways and a stream-lined, wiser Medicaire.

The total budget would be a pittance compared to its current amount and could be taken care of by a national sales tax of about 2%. No income tax, by the way. Now, you take a place like California (please). They are in deep kimshi because they spend more than they take in. If they were able to stop sending their money to the federal government … well, let’s be honest, it would help California for about six months and then they would have burned through that, too. At which point it’s their own stupid mess and the other 49 states are not obligated to keep throwing money down that hole. Or, those of us in solvent states, could start loaning money out to the dimwitted states—not just at interest, but with the stipulation that they get their house in order.

What about the poor? Americans are a very generous people and the local churches and service clubs could do a much better job of taking care of the poor if they didn’t have Big Brother looking over our shoulder. Sure, we might teach them morals or even religion in the process, but that’s way better than what the government is teaching them (“don’t work, just eat and reproduce”).

Oh, and we’ll pay the president $1 a year, just to be nice. After all, he’s got room and board and, after he (or she) is out of office, there will be a multimillion dollar book deal that should more than take care of their twilight years.

So, how about it, people? Let’s elect some grinches who will go in and attack the budget like my uncle Leon attacks a fried chicken.