Saturday, February 23, 2013


I hate to say it but some of Obama's presentations have essentially been those of a prop-comic (not that the bone-headed Boehner is appreciably better, obviously). The man just cannot go up to the podium by himself and give it to the American people straight. He has to have children, first responders, Lily Ledbetter and it's really gotten to the point where I half expect him to come on stage with a sledgehammer and watermelon. WE ARE LED TO BELIEVE that $85 billion out of a $3.7 trillion budget is somehow going to cause absolute lawlessness/defenselessness and mass starvation. I mean, come on here/damn it all. It's like, "Yes, Mr. President, this sequestration, as is, is going to cause us some pain. But you're the frigging President! Show the country some leadership and put on the damned chopping-block something else (like, I don't know, maybe some of those bogus green energy boondoggles that a) aren't necessarily all that green and b) represent a massive misallocation of resources), and dare the Republicans to match you. Hell, Mr. President, you might even be able to shame them at that point (an activity that you seemingly enjoy and they seemingly enjoy doing to you) and I say go for it."

1 comment:

dmarks said...

A good way to save some money would be to eliminate most federal salaries over $120,000. Only have very few that high. Then have most of the high-range ones fall between $70k and $90K. None of the massive increase under Obama of federal "workers" earning more than $100,000.

Eliminate Davis-Bacon, which would result in either $11 billion outright savings per year, or $11 billion more each year to spend on infrastructure. Yes, I am OK with the 2nd option...

Bring down the salaries of many federal workers by 33%. From the Cato Institute: "As a consequence, the average federal civilian worker now earns twice as much in wages and benefits as the average worker in the U.S. private sector"

Completely eliminate the Congressional pension program. If former Congressmen can't live on their social security, well, I wonder whose fault that is?

To make up for cutting Congress' excessive pay and to make it less of a burden on them, offer them vouchers for free housing in DC public housing during their time in the House or Senate. If they object and say that the housing is substandard and dangerous, well, whose fault is that? They are responsible for DC. And if the housing isn't good enough for them, why do they think it is good enough for poor people?

This is the kind of austerity the nation can life with: cut the entirely needless largesse to the well-off and wealthy.