…and here’s how we can do it.
First, why is it impossible? Why do you think, you racist?
Blacks are disproportionately represented in government jobs.
Yes. Would this be a problem if the budget was balanced? Not at all. But the budget’s adding debt at the rate of $5,000 per citizen per year. And “if something can’t go on forever…it won’t”. But,
Which politician will vote and fight to slash jobs and fire lots of black people? And if that actually somehow takes place, what exactly do you think will happen in the press and in black America?
So, here’s what we have:
1) If we don’t massively downsize the government we’re going to go bankrupt.
2) Massive layoffs are politically impossible because of the disproportionate effect on black Americans.
3) ???
4) Profit!!
We cannot make headway on point #1 if point #2 isn’t taken into account. Tea Partyers, much as I love them, show no signs of understanding this. But what’s conceptually “impossible” for social mammals is child’s play for the W.O.R.M.. Does point #3 seem intractable to you? Try substituting this:
Pay federal workers not to do their jobs.
For the rest of their lives, if necessary. A 365-day paid vacation every year, 366 in leap years, starting ASAP. And if they “double-dip” by doing private sector work during their endless vacation? Why, that’s not only permitted, it’s greatly encouraged!
This is not a joke. I am not kidding. But am I crazy?
Here’s the federal payroll, March 2009.
Fifteen billion per month, let’s say it’s $200 billion per year. Benefits not likely included, so tack on another hundred billion.
What do we get for paying $300,000,000,000 to our employees every year? An economic loss of up to $1,750,000,000,000, on total federal expenditures of $6,200,000,000,000, of which about $1,500,000,000,000 is borrowed.
Well? Heed the Foghorn!
Here’s the list of federal executive departments. Next radical idea: any department that hasn’t been around since America’s beginning isn’t necessary for America’s existence. Because duh.
So how many do we have to have? Uh…as it turns out…none. But the Founding Fathers included a lot of geniuses, and they gradually added the Departments of State, Treasury, and War, plus an Attorney General (Justice).
There are a few…a very very few…legitimate federal functions in other departments. Let’s sum them up as ”settling states’ disputes”. Well, that’s why federal courts and the Justice Department exist. Justice, especially, may need some expansion to handle essential federal regulations.
And…everything else can go. Since we’re paying people not to work, how many of them will need government vehicles, buildings, computers, etc? None. So we eliminate non-personnel budgets and sell off mountains of government assets.
Obviously, the minimum we cut from federal expenditures must be at least what we’re borrowing. This argument is purely moral: American children aren’t allowed to vote in this theft of their future earnings. I’d rather they rose against us in armed rebellion and killed us all, than that we continue to enslave them.
Unless the “plan” (Ha ha, kidding! There’s obviously no plan.-ed) is to default, whether through outright refusal or by slapping green ink on paper. In either case, we’re a nation of thieves. This is also unacceptable to me.
Therefore, we cut a few hundred billion “into the black” and start paying down the monstrous debt. Let’s shoot for a two trillion dollar reduction. (Remember, “entitlement” spending will continue to grow, as will interest payments until we balance the budget.)
We’re not doing away with all federal regulations, so legal easements won’t give us the full $1.75 trillion economic boost. Call it 1 trillion, maybe 1.2. Of course this added wealth generates federal revenue even before we rationalize the tax code.
Which means paying federal workers to stop working essentially pays for itself. Along with increasing private sector wealth by nearly a trillion dollars every year.
Is this fair? Is it fair to give the foot soldiers of the Ruling Class excellent wages and benefits not to do anything, possibly for the rest of their lives? No, of course not.
But folks…we have to start dividing and conquering. Not all federal workers are nanny-staters and crony capitalists, and all of them worry about feeding their family. Many of them are entirely unfit to compete in the marketplace. They will never betray the ever-growing “progressive” government if we don’t make it worth their while.
And it’s not like it would be necessary to offer a fifty-year paid vacation. That’s negotiable. (ADDED–My starting offer is an 8-year paid vacation followed by a layoff. That’s time enough to go to college, get a degree, get a master’s, and get a PhD. Or “double-dip” for eight years if you’re already employable. And I’ll have an iota of pity up to 22.75 years…the time from conception of your darling daughter to her graduation from college. If you want her in grad school, maybe a little part-time work during one of your vacation decades? Geez.)
The point is, giving one million federal employees a fifty-year paid vacation works. Paying less than that is simply gravy. Minimizing federal government is the goal, bribing federal workers with permanent vacation is just a tactic.
Obviously I’d take this deal in a heartbeat. It’s the rational thing to do. Let Rick Perry keep breathing 10th Amendment fire (and mean it, please God) but combine it with an offer to lay off 9/10ths of federal workers while continuing to pay them, for as long as necessary.
Or, we can be Obamaesque. Keep doing the same old things while hoping for different results.
Control-freaks, “activists”, and rent-seeking remoras would all scream bloody murder at federal dissolution, of course. Let ‘em. We can’t make this omelet without cracking a few eggheads. Couldn’t happen to a nicer crowd.
Okay, that’s the idea. Shoot it down if you can.
http://wormme.com/2011/09/01/yes-its-totally-impossible-to-downsize-the-federal-government/
Topic: For Your Consideration (Read 592 times)