Obama, Congress and Shared Sacrifice: Government Sharing the Pain

The Obama/Democrat position on cutting the budget deficit cam be summarized as follows: The goovernment OWNS all of the money and resources of this nation, and you only get to keep what the government LETS you keep. Since what you earn, and have, belongs to the government, the government has a right to demand that all of lyou "share the sacrifice" of a reduction in the money you earn, and have. In other words, Obama looks at welfare and your persoanl earnings as the SAME THING. When Albert Pujols hits a home run, and raises his value on the free agent market to earn a LOT of money, he is not entitled to that money because he has the talents of Albert Pujols. He gets that money on SUFFERANCE from the government, and the government has an EQUAL right to dispose of that money as it has to cut the BENEFITS the government is paying (because the governnment does not have the money). That is because Obama and the Democrats look upon the arnings of Albert Pujols as just as much a "benefit" belonging to the government as the welfare payments someone else is receiving.


Conservatives believe that people OWN their own money, and are entitled to keep it--except reasonable amounts for the NECESSARY functions of government. This means that Obama and the Democrats believe the Feral Government has a "right" to redistribute the wealth, because all wealth is subject to government regulation and control, and even believe that government is the SOURCE of all wealth. Conservatives believe that is ridiculous and immoral. It also will DESTROY this nation in clss warfare, if peple get the idea that the wealth of OTHRES (like Pujols) is theirs to allocate as they desire. Conservatives do not believe that the Federal Government was ever designed as an all powerful custodian of all of the wealth of the country, and that therefore it is absurd to suggest that private citizens must "share the sacrifice' when government does not have enough money to do what Big Government people want government to do. Conservatives believe that the government has NO "right' to take money from one set of people and give it to another.


"Wait a second, Skip, are yo saying that the Federal Government should not be doing Medicare, welfare, food stamps and all of these other wealth transfer programs." Yes and no. Perosnally, I have never faovred Medicare, and do not believe that the Federal Government should be controlling so much of the health care of this country. Ditto for Medicaid. These should be STATE programs. That is the level at which there can be real control, and the level at which costs are obvious (partly because you don't have the DECEPTION of printing the money, or borrowing an infiite amount). But most conservatives do not object to the point of view that the government--state or Federal--should provide some sort of minimum "saftey net". for people I am probably more with Ron Paul on this, than with people who want a Welfare State. But the concept of a certain measure of emergency support for people is not something I fundamentally oppose--even though I would vastly perfer that we have devleoped a system of LOCAL charity and local government help rather than this central planning disaster of a bloated Federal Govvernment. But what I am definitely saying it that the Federal Government must LIVE WITHIN ITS MEANS, and not confiscazte the money of peoplle when it cannot live within its means. Now Obama SAYS that the Consitution rEQUIRES the Federal Government to live within its means (see next article), but everyone knows he does not mean that. But what do I mean by "live within its means". Does not the Federal Government have the "right" to take EVERYTHING that Albert Pujols has, because all of the money in the country belogs to the Federal Government to allocate?


Nope. That is exactly where Obama, the mainstream media, and other leftist Democrats miss the point. The government should NEVER take too much from private people. In the first place, it is self-defeating. If you take away everything a person earns over $250,000, then NO ONE earns over $250,000 (for tax purposes). Raising taxes doesnot raise revenues, in the long term. But it is just WRONG to TAKE more than 25% of a person's money, especailly when your goal is to give that money to someone else. Now Ronald Reagan got us as colse as lpossible to this simple concept, with his income tax rates of 15% and 28%. Not bad. Good enough for government work. Since then, we have been steadily undermining Reagan's simpe concept, that served us so well. We nave not only substantially raised tax rates, but we have undermined the SIMPLICTY of the Reagan concept with more and more complicatioins of the tax code. "Green" tax credits. Many different rates and discriminating deductions (where the "rich" don't get the same deductions as everone else). This is absurd, and it has cost us dearly.


Nope. What Obama, the mainsteam media and other leftist Democrats do is START WITH THE GOVERNMENT OWING IT ALL. Therefore, the first thing for them is to determine what the GOVERNMENT NEDDS, and try to figure out a way to get it. Conservatives, on the other hand, have the correct approach Our approach is to determine the MAXIMUM GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE, and the MAXXIMUM that should be TAKEN from any personby the government, in order to maintain a free society and free economy not overwhelmed by the government (especailly the Federal Government). Then the government has to LIVE WITHIN THOSE MEANS, whether it wants to or not. You can see that, look at correctly this talk of "shared sacrifice" for the "rich" is absurd, if you correctly decide what limits there should be on government FRIST. It is not a matter of the government allocating all of the resources of the country. It is a matter of realizing that people WON THEIR OWN MONEY, and that the government should never be able to simply take an ever greater amount of that money away from them becaue the government "needs it". It is not a matter of "sacrifice". It is a matter of LIMITING GOVERNMENT to maintain the principles of freedom and INDIVIDUAL rights and responsitilities upon which this country was founded. If Warren Buffet WANTS to give his money to the government, or direcctly to the "ppor", I applaud him If Waren Buffet wants to endorse the diea that all resources are at the disposal of the government, and that the government can TAKE an infinite amouunt fomr whomever it wants and give an infinite amount to whomever it wants, then I CONDEMN WARRNE BUFFET for the fool he is.


There are tow limits that should be imposed here. First, the government should never have a tax RATE higher than 25%. Otherwise, Albert Pujols is spendin gtoo many of his talents working for YOU and for ME. That is unfair, and undermines the concepts upon which this country was founded. Besides, it does not work. Second, the Federal Government should be LIMITD to spending 18% of our GDP. That should be a Constitutional Amendment, because it simply enforces what OBAMA says is the duty of politicians under the Constitution: to live within the means of government, in a way consistent with the role of government in our Constitutonal system. And nope, there should be no DSCRIMINATION in deductons, since that just effectively raises the tax rate. Someone who earns $100,0000 should have the same deductions of lack of same, as someone who earns $50,000.


Notice that I am not saing that the numbers above should be a FLOOR on government spending. The Federal Government should spend as little as possible: ideally below 18% of the whole economy. But I realize that it probably will end up being both a maximum and a minimum, because of the human nature of politicians. But that brings us to "shhared sacrifice", which has NO meaning in th e correct conservative view of the proper way to determine government taxes and expenditures,--certainly no meaning of the type asstered by a wealth redistributionist like Obama. But you shold see who the concept of "shared sacrifice" DOES enter into this in a way Obama, the mainsttream media, and other leftists would never realize (because they don't believe i the concepts upon which this country was founded). When our econmy suffers, the GOVERNMENT should suffer.


That means that those people receiving government benefits have to accept real CUTS. Nope. It is NOT a government "benefit" for the "rich" to be alowed to keep most of their money. But government PAYMENTS are government benefits. That is why I suggeted something which COWARDLY Republicans , and even other conservatives, are reluctant to psh: A 5% REAL CUT (from last year) in the ENTGRIE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT--across the board,. Now that is "hsared sacrifice". Further, I would propose a 5% RAL CUT (from laSt year) in ALL FEDERAL SALARIES. No, I am not done. I would p;ropose a 10% REAL CT in all Federal salaries at $100,000 or above (maybe phased in to some degree above $100,000). The ONLY exception I would make would be military people belowe the rank of captain (or whatever rank or salary you want to exempt for military people). . Yes, this salary reduction would INCLUDE CONGRESS. It would INCLUDE FEDERAL JUDGES. It would include GENRALS and CABINET OFFICERS. No. I would not stop there. I would CUT that ridiclous Congressonal retirement "plan", where members of Congress (for even one term, according to my understanding) get their SALARLY FOR LIFE> I would certainly cut the retirement back to that of other Federal employees, and I woul d definitely consider telling people of Congress to RELY on Social Secruity like other in the country. My brother would make VERY Federal employee join the Social Security system (helping out Social Security), and eliminate a special retirement system for Federal employees. I do not know if I owuld go that far, although I am certainly open to the idea. But we do need to REFORM the Federal pensions to force them to take a hit, jjust like private pensions have.


This is REAL "shared sacrifice", instead of the wealth redistribution kind faovred by Obama. The GOVERNMENT, and the people dependent on it share in the sacrifice when thigns go badly. But they do not "share in the sacrifice" because the government owns all of the resources in the country, and has the right to tell everyone what they arfe allowed to make. They "sare in the sacrifice" because we have to LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS (as a Federal Government), and everyone receiving monetary payments from the government should SHARE in the cuts necesssary to make that happen.


You, or Obama, say that is not fair? Well, you are wrong, aren't you. My brother, for example, was the new co-CEO and co-owner of his own company. This was his DREAM. He bught the company, employing 200 people or so, as an EMPLOYEE of the company (using a leveraged byout, even though he had almost no personal assets). My brother, after the purchasse, was earning $250,000 or so a year. He was also working like a dog. The recession, along with GOVERFNMENT POLICY and GE (evil company) KILLED my borther's business. He was unemployed. Now he has a job earning $80,000 a year, up from a starting salary of $65,000 or so. I am saying that GOVERNMENT workers earning more than $100,000 a year should "sacrifice" 10%, because the government DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY. My brother saw his salary ct more than 2/3 (more than 67%). You should be able to see how TWISTED the government centered Obama idea of "sacrifice" is.


Yes, I understand that FAvORED big businesses have been doing pretty well, and that SOME of the "rich" may have done well. So what? Conservatives would NEVER--not real conservatgives--have BAILED OUT all of tthose big business and Wall Street people. (Larry Kudlow, BITE ME). Conservatives would not STILL be subsidizing BANKS, as Obama and the Federal Reserve have done since the official "bail outs" have stopped. In fact, what the banks are really doing is using YOUR MONEY to "pay back" the government. That goes along with the Federal Reserve using government money (printed) to buy government "debt". Neat trick, is it not?


We have to limit the government, and that limited government has to "live within its means"--"means" that we dtermine to be alppropriate not based on government "needs" but on what is appropriagte for the government to TAKE AWAY from people and from the econmy.


Now answer me honestly? Do you really believe that REPUBICANS have the COURAGE to propose what I propose above (not, by the way, the only cuts I would make)? Is your answer not a SAD commentary on the Republican Party?


No proofreading or spell checkig (bad eyesight).