You may recall a recent post I did where I talked about having learned, while studying to become an engineer, that one should avoid pissing into the wind. The blow back is most unpleasant. Well, that is exactly what our illustrious Congress is doing. They are pissing into the wind. On the very day that they passed the most recent Continuing Resolution with $6 billion in spending cuts, our national debt increased $72 billion. As I said, the blowback is most unpleasant.
Based on this article from CNS, Bruce McQuain at Questions and Observations has put it all in perspective. He relates how after wrangling with the Democrats for days to pass a CR that keeps government afloat for three weeks, the bill contained only $6 billion in cut,which according to Rand Paul is equivalent to 1.2 days of government spending. So, you tell me. Are we making progress or are we pissing into the wind? Bruce’s analysis is very concise :
Tuesday we added an additional $72 billion to the debt. You do the math. If the GOP is successful in removing $6 billion every three weeks for the remaining 36 weeks of the budget cycle, how much will they have cut?
In essence, zero. They will have only matched the amount added to the debt on Tuesday. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are a bunch more “Tuesdays” coming in the remaining fiscal year. So even with the cuts the GOP is attempting, they’re not even at the “treading water” level and are being fought every step of the way.
And Bruce wraps-up with this food for thought:
Congress would need to cut spending by $6 billion every three weeks for approximately the next six and a half years (338 weeks) just to equal the $676.3 billion the debt has increased thus far this fiscal year.
Just makes you shake you’re head in profound dismay, doesn’t it? What in the freakin’ hell do we have to do to get it across to these people that they have to stop this stuff?
That, Bruce McQuain, is a very good question. Anyone out there have an answer for Bruce? I don’t.
I read somewhere recently a comparison of a Politician to a Statesman. It went something like this : A politician works to be re-elected while a Statesman works for the future of his country. Clearly we need more Statesmen and less Politicians. We wouldn’t need a lot of Statesmen. Maybe as few as 300 would do the job. that’s not asking too much, is it? Three hundred men and women out of a population of about 300 million who would be willing to go to Washington and work for the future of their country After all, the job pays well and has great perks.
So, how do we find 300 qualified men and women who are willing to work for the future of America? How do we convince them to run for office? How do we get them elected? Maybe we should just do away with the election process. Instead we write-up a job description and hire a top-notch “executive search firm” and start interviewing. We then hire the best candidates for fixed term contracts. Too simple, right? Help me out here folks. Only 300 statesmen. Any ideas?