Go to PDF Version | Go to Recent Issues
To save time in the future, you may select one of the preferences below. You may update your eIBD preferences at any time by going into My IBD and selecting Update Your eIBD Preferences.
Set Web-Based Version as Default Set PDF Version as Default Set Recent Issues as Default
Get QuoteSearch Site
Daily Graphs Online
View Enlarged Image
Whether Americans realize it or not, the last decade's path of congressional spending is unsustainable. Spending must be reined in, but what spending should be cut?
The Republican majority in the House of Representatives fear being booted out of office and are understandably timid. Their rule for whom to cut appears to be: Look around to see who are the politically weak handout recipients.
The problem is that those cuts won't put much of a dent in overall spending. The absolute last thing a Republican or Democrat congressmen wants to do is to cut handouts to, and thereby anger, recipients who vote in large numbers.
To spare myself ugly mail, I'm not going to mention that handout group, but members of Congress know of whom I speak.
More than 200 House members and 50 senators have co-sponsored a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. A balanced budget amendment is no protection against the growth of government and the loss of our liberties.
Estimated federal tax revenue for 2011 is $2.2 trillion and federal spending is $3.8 trillion, leaving us with a $1.6 trillion deficit. The budget could be balanced simply by taking more of our earnings, making us greater congressional serfs. True protection requires an amendment limiting congressional spending.
You say, "OK, Williams, what would be your rule for getting our fiscal house in order?" We need a rule that combines our Constitution with simple morality and plain common sense.
I think it immoral for Congress to forcibly take one American's earnings and give them to another American to whom they do not belong. If a person did the same thing privately, he'd be convicted of theft and jailed. We might ask ourselves whether acts that are clearly immoral and despicable when done privately are any less so when done by Congress.
Close to two-thirds of the federal budget, so-called entitlements, represent what thieves do: redistribute income.
Some people might say, "Williams, the programs that you'd cut are vital to the welfare of our nation!" When someone says that, I always ask what did we do before?
For example, our nation went from 1787 to 1979 and during that interval produced some of the world's most highly educated people without a Department of Education. Since the department's creation, American primary and secondary education has become a joke among industrialized nations.
What about the Department of Energy; how much energy has it produced? From our founding in 1787 to 1965, our nation went from a Third World status to building the world's mightiest first-class cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit and Philadelphia without the benefit of Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). After HUD was created in 1965, many of our formerly great cities are in decline. No one is saying that HUD is responsible for the decline, but neither was HUD responsible for their rise.
America seems trapped in an exploding Middle East minefield. Revolts are breaking out amid choke points of world commerce. Shiite populations are restive in the Gulf monarchies. Iran's youth are sick and tired of the country's 7th-century theocracy. Astride the Suez Canal, Egyptian demonstrators ...
Voices around the world, from Europe to America to Libya, are calling for U.S. intervention to help bring down Moammar Gadhafi. Yet for bringing down Saddam Hussein, the U.S. has been denounced variously for aggression, deception, arrogance and imperialism. A strange moral inversion, considering ...
Sometimes you get an idea of the way opinion is headed by the phrases you don't hear. Case in point: In all the discussion and debate these past weeks about a possible government shutdown if Congress and President Obama fail to agree on funding bills, I don't recall having heard the phrase "train ...
During the health care debate, few charges were more controversial than the one that government would decide who lives and who dies by rationing medical care. But based on a recent government health care ruling, it looks as if that accusation wasn't such an exaggeration. In late December, the Food ...
Those who see hope in the Middle East uprisings seem to assume that they will lead in the direction of freedom or democracy. There is already talk about the "liberation" of Egypt, even though the biggest change there has been that a one-man dictatorship has been replaced by a military dictatorship ...
Posted By: bobbygordon(4775) on 3/8/2011 | 2:24 AM ET
Far too reasonable, logical, intelligent and commonsensical for the left to understand. Taxes will probably go higher, definitely if Obama is reelected. With global unrest what it is today, we may have bigger fish to fry, sad but true. I'm looking forward to reading what you have to say about the coming election next year.
Posted By: anthonyindenver(105) on 3/7/2011 | 9:51 PM ET
Reduce the EPA and demand and set in law; no mare czars or czarinas!! Amen to Walt on HUD, and the other "helpful" agencies.
Posted By: sevanclaig(765) on 3/7/2011 | 8:48 PM ET
Walt had another home run until he blamed my parents/grandparents generation. Their only fault was raising a bunch of selfish, spoiled brats. I personally fall into the last months of the official "baby boomer" generation. Yet I will be proud to shut the lights off behind them/us, saying good riddance to- as a collective whole- the mightiest scourge our nation has ever known. No matter who we blame, it is not my children's debt- it should be paid in full within the next 20 years.
Register
Avoid laggards even if their group is strong.
Get QuoteSearch Site
Read Full Article »
