Randy,
I read your latest newsletter and watched your remarks on the House floor concerning a balanced federal budget.
The plan is to balance the budget in 10 years. That means we will continue to be out of balance, or in effect, spending more money than we have for the next nine years. I will grant that a federal government budget has some unusual aspects compared to a personal budget, but they are not completely different. They involve pluses and minuses or income and expenses. If I were to spend more than I take in for nine straight years, I would be bankrupt and on the government dole. On a more basic aspect closer to nature, if I were to eat less for nine straight years than I need to stay alive, I would be dead. I will grant that it took us a long time to get into this deficit situation, presumably because we didn't watch what we were doing, but that doesn't mean that it would similarly take a long time for us to correct the errors.
I don't want Ryan's budget, which increases government spending 3% each year. That's out of balance, because we are increasing spending by that amount, when we already know we have a deficit income. A ridiculous proposal! Go to the chopping block! There will be pain, but any time there has been access, the result will be pain. Example, overeating causes obesity with subsequent probability of an early death. The solution is to go on a diet, but it is painful. Taking cocaine can presumably give a feeling of joy and exhilaration, but it is said that the withdrawal pain is horrendous.
Is there a choice on the budget? No! We are on the road to devastation. Let's move to the pain, with the expectation that we can get back to life.
I read your latest newsletter and watched your remarks on the House floor concerning a balanced federal budget.
The plan is to balance the budget in 10 years. That means we will continue to be out of balance, or in effect, spending more money than we have for the next nine years. I will grant that a federal government budget has some unusual aspects compared to a personal budget, but they are not completely different. They involve pluses and minuses or income and expenses. If I were to spend more than I take in for nine straight years, I would be bankrupt and on the government dole. On a more basic aspect closer to nature, if I were to eat less for nine straight years than I need to stay alive, I would be dead. I will grant that it took us a long time to get into this deficit situation, presumably because we didn't watch what we were doing, but that doesn't mean that it would similarly take a long time for us to correct the errors.
I don't want Ryan's budget, which increases government spending 3% each year. That's out of balance, because we are increasing spending by that amount, when we already know we have a deficit income. A ridiculous proposal! Go to the chopping block! There will be pain, but any time there has been access, the result will be pain. Example, overeating causes obesity with subsequent probability of an early death. The solution is to go on a diet, but it is painful. Taking cocaine can presumably give a feeling of joy and exhilaration, but it is said that the withdrawal pain is horrendous.
Is there a choice on the budget? No! We are on the road to devastation. Let's move to the pain, with the expectation that we can get back to life.
In a second part of your newsletter, you
said that you are moving to assure that taxpayer dollars are not used in
abortion programs in public schools. On the surface, this sounds good, but go
back to what I said previously about the budget. It's silly to talk about
taxpayer funded abortions in public schools, when we should not be sending any
taxpayer dollars to public schools. Public schools should be funded by local
citizens or eliminated with the establishment of private schools. The federal
government has no business in education. That should be part of the new
budget.
No comments:
Post a Comment