Category: Politics

Our legislators all claim they want to spend less.  But every time they attempt a plan for fiscal responsibility, they get sidetracked on who-wants-to-cut-what.

If they are serious about our finances, they have to stop debating which programs to cut (Planned Parenthood, Medicare, the Military, etc), and instead focus on the budget itself.   This means unilateral cuts, blind to the programs, and  simply trim everything equally.

Here is my simple proposal to balance the budget over 8 years (2013 to 2020):

1. Federal Spending in 2010 was ~$3.5T with revenues of ~$2.1T.  To make these changes in 2013-2020,  we need to cut $1.4T per year.  We will accomplish this by reducing spending by $175B annually, additively.
2. An annual spending cap is defined as:
                          ($3.5T – $175B * (Year – 2012))
1. 2013 = $3.325T
2. 2014 = $3.150T
3. 2015 = $2.975T
4. 2016 = $2.800T
5. 2017 = $2.625T
6. 2018 = $2.450T
7. 2019 = $2.275T
8. 2020 = $2.100T
9. > 2020 : The cap is set to the prior year’s revenue.
3. Each year, the budget dictates the proportion of money spent for each line item.  If the total budget exceeds the values from (2), spending per line item will be reduced proportionally such that total spending equals the value of line (2).
4. These spending cuts are mandatory, and override any previously guaranteed benefits to any programs.  All federal programs will need to adjust to the new spending caps.
5. If, in any year, there is a surplus in revenues, the spending caps outlined in (2) will remain, and the surplus will be used to reduce the overall debt.
6. After the year 2020, annual spending will be capped at the total revenue of the previous year, and the budget balancing process of line (3) will be applied with the new spending cap.

This solution removes the politically charged plans where our legislators always get tripped up.  This is liberating for all legislators, as they can now focus on getting the job done and balancing the budget in 8 years.  No problem, right?

We currently have 435 legislators in the House of Representatives.  This number has been fixed since 1913.  Question:  Do we need the same number of representatives that we had back then?

On one hand, you could argue that we need more seats in Congress.  After all, there were only 97M Americans in 1913.  Today we have 307M Americans.  Surely more constituents requires a larger congress?

But think about the technology advancements since that time.  In 1913, if you wanted to communicate with your representative, what choices did you have?  He certainly didn’t visit his local district very often – the first commercial flight didn’t even take place until 1914.  Calling your representative was unlikely – there was no long distance from California to Washington at back then, and long distance calls from closer geographies were manual and time consuming.  And of course there was no internet, so real-time communication was impossible.   We did have the one-way megaphones of newspapers and magazines.  And of course, you could write a letter. 

So, in 1913, maybe we needed 435 legislators.  Each had a significant job to do with just communicating, corresponding, traveling, and coordinating between Washington and his local region. 

But today, do we need so many?  With a single email, legislators can reach far more than 225,000 people right from the comfort of his mistress’ bed.  Websites, telephones, television, and email combined certainly make the communication burden almost non-existent compared to 1913.

Obviously, there is more to legislation than just communication with constituents.  But, given the gridlock in Washington, the skyrocketing costs of Washington, and the increased dissatisfaction with the never-ending burden of an increasingly complex set of laws, maybe we should cut that 435 in half.  Any reason why not?  Or is that just the way we roll around here?

First, some guiding principles:

1. Consider who is backing each bill and how much they’re spending to back it.  The more they are spending, the more valuable it is to them.  Ask yourself why.
2. Remember that every law has overhead – a new commission, a new study, a new enforcement, etc.  Even if the burden is placed on existing agencies (like our police officers or our firefighters or our court systems), each law usually costs money.  Unions (teachers, firefighters, police) usually support more work, because they get bigger.
3. Be skeptical.
4. If everything looks equal, vote no.

Second, some resources:

1. BallotPedia.  I have found this site to be pretty comprehensive, well organized, and fair.
2. OpenSecrets.  OpenSecret tracks political contributions and lobbying.  Their coverage is mostly at the federal level, however.

Finally, the votes!

Prop 19:  Legalize Marijuana.  As with alcohol, legalize it and deal with the consequences.  I won’t touch the stuff.

Prop 20: Redistricting of Congressional Districts via committee.  Committees are just as corrupt as congress.  A computer should draw the lines, but this is better than today.

Prop 21: Tax to fund state parks.  The park system is plagued with administrative overhead.  Supporters should donate to the parks rather than to this bill.

Prop 22: Prohibit State Spending against Local Funds.  Our governors need to be able to legislate holistically.  This creates unnecessary boundaries.

Prop 23: Suspend the “Global Warning Act” until unemployment drops below 5.5%.  I don’t like California at an economic disadvantage in the global market.

Prop 24: Increase business taxes in California.  Check out the Teacher’s Union support on this bill.  This is just a tax to prolong big government.

Prop 25: State budget via simple majority.  The teacher’s union working to expand big-government.  I don’t want the budget controlled by the ruling party.  This is downright scary.

Prop 26: Make “fees” require 2/3 vote since they are taxes.  The state doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.  Act now, or “fees” will cripple California.

Prop 27: Abolish committee for State Legislature redistricting.  It’s either Prop 20 or Prop 27.  Prop 20 is better.

It’s no secret that I’m not a fan of unions.  But I’m even less of a fan of public-sector unions for two reasons:

1. As a taxpayer, I’m on the hook for the bill.
2. Politicians simply can’t resist giving unions money in exchange for votes.

I apologize to the firefighters, police officers, and teachers.  Your jobs are extremely important.  But we can’t afford your unions, and we need your help to bust them apart.  Unions are the same cancer which bankrupted America’s once-largest-company, General Motors.  Why do we let this cancer invade our state?  (Oh yeah, Jerry Brown did it – so don’t vote for him now)

Shedlock puts it well:

In the case of public unions, if politicians strike a bad deal, taxpayers foot the bill. In the case of private corporations, if management strikes a bad deal, the company goes bankrupt, shareholders take a hit, or the jobs move elsewhere, as soon as the contract is up.

If you aren’t convinced, here are some articles to read:

Here’s The Real Problem With Labor Unions

The Beholden State

Plundering California

Public-sector unions bankrupting America