January 20th, 2010 | Author:
akagaga
There’s an old saying that I’ve always been quite fond of:
A committee is twelve people doing the work of one.
Thanks to the brains in Washington, we’ve got another one. The Post reports:
Faced with growing alarm over the nation’s soaring debt, the White House and congressional Democrats tentatively agreed Tuesday to create an independent budget commission and to put its recommendations for fiscal solvency to a vote in Congress by the end of this year.
Under the agreement, President Obama would issue an executive order to create an 18-member panel that would be granted broad authority to propose changes in the tax code and in the massive federal entitlement programs — including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — that threaten to drive the nation’s debt to levels not seen since World War II.
Only in Washington would you try to solve a budget problem by hiring more people.
Only in Washington would you need eighteen people instead of the standard twelve.
Only in Washington would those eighteen people be issued the “broad authority” to … propose changes.
Only in Washington.
November 13th, 2009 | Author:
akagaga
The FDIC’s board voted Thursday to require banks to pay at the end of this year the amount they would owe the FDIC over the next three years. The agency collects insurance premiums from all banks, which it uses to reimburse depositors in failed banks. Washington Post
This is just insane! Unless the FDIC gives exceptions, banks which are already financially unstable will be forced into bankruptcy! Think about it this way: You are eking out a living for yourself and have bought a nice car that you are still making payments on. Basically, you are living paycheck to paycheck. Your bank calls you up one day and says, “Oh, by the way, we need you to pay three years worth of car insurance within the next two months, or else we will repossess your car.” What the heck do you do? Pay for three years worth of insurance, or give up the car? Doctor Bulldog & Ronin
November 11th, 2009 | Author:
akagaga
Let’s pretend you run a business. Let’s pretend it’s located in New York State, and you already pay crippling state and federal taxes that make it hard to compete. You have 10 employees, 7 with families and 3 who are single, with an annual payroll of $509,000. Pelosi’s health care system gives you a choice:
- You can pay Pelosi’s 2% tax, which totals $10,180 for the year, and dump all your workers into the government health care system, or
- you can pay $63,100 and continue to provide private insurance for your employees
Which option would you choose?
Similar scenarios were outlined by Rep. Joe Barton of Texas on the house floor before the bill was passed, but it obviously had no effect, which leads one to wonder: do Pelosi and company want everybody to have good health insurance, or do they really just want everybody to have government-run health insurance? CNSNews had this to say:
Because the government-run public option would be able to undersell the government-approved private plans in the government-run insurance exchange, the government-run option would soon be the only option.
Government would control our health care from womb to tomb, a time span likely to be shortened by government care.
August 23rd, 2008 | Author:
akagaga
Robert Egger, founder of D.C. Central Kitchen … has crisscrossed the country as part of his V3 Campaign asking presidential candidates how they would partner with nonprofit groups. Egger described the sector as “balkanized,” with many competing for funding and often overlapping in missions and services.
I don’t know about you, but this scares the pants off me, just like Bush’s “faith-based initiatives.” What Egger needs to realize is that the free market which he complains about, is the same free market that lets him run his kitchen as he sees fit. As soon as he accepts a government hand-out, he accepts government regulation. When he accepts government regulation, his non-profit becomes nothing more than another inefficient government bureaucracy.
If he wants to continue to run his charity, he should become familiar with its definition. Charity is a voluntary action.
- Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
- Something given to help the needy; alms.
- An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
- Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.
Taxation, by its definition, is not.
- A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
- A fee or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its expenses.
- A burdensome or excessive demand; a strain.
Those of us who prefer to choose our own charities would appreciate it if Egger and company would keep their hands out of our pockets. There is nothing charitable about taxation.
February 26th, 2008 | Author:
akagaga
Inflation, depression, stag-flation – the economy presents a gloomy picture no matter who’s report you look at. The folks in Washington won’t approve, because complications keep them in business, but I have a simple solution: reduce government spending, which translates into reduced taxes, which gives us more money to buy gas and food.
Given our two-party system, however, this is just about the impossible dream. The Republicans would be glad to cut spending on social programs, while they increase the military budget. The Democrats would be glad to cut military spending, while they increase the social budget. And nobody wants to give up the pork barrel projects that keep them in Washington.
So here’s my solution: Arbitrarily, with no exceptions allowed, every part of the budget gets reduced by 10% this year. Then next year, we repeat the process. After we do this for five or six years in a row, then we can start looking at individual items to see where we can make some serious cuts.
Think it’ll pass?
Recent Comments