Tuesday, August 02, 2011

…is good for the gander

I like colloquial sayings; used to have a picture with the most common phrases in the bathroom. “Today is the first day of the rest of your life”, not one of my favorites; but you get the idea.

A line which wasn’t on the list; but easily could have been, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. Who’d have guessed there would be an entire page on Google dedicated to explaining this ancient saying?

The only reason the subject came to mind was the recent debt ceiling crisis talks in Washington. Devin Dwyer, writing for ABC World News wrote an article explaining how Obama wants both sides to “pull off the band-aid”, something which is often quite painful.

“Obama has endorsed a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction that would trim close to $4 trillion over the next decade through a mix of spending cuts -- including changes to some entitlement programs -- and tax increases for wealthier Americans and corporations.”

The problem, at least the way I see it, has to do with what folks in Washington call a “balanced approach”. They show up at the public trough and fill their pockets while at the same time destroying the livelihood of the very people who pay those tax dollars and then tell us there isn’t enough money; we have to spend more money to get out of debt and increase taxes on the filthy rich. I’ve yet to figure out how spending more money we don’t have will…kind of like a short sheeted bed isn’t it?

Statistics are fun to play with because they have so many ways of being interpreted. Looking up the median income for working Americans proved more difficult than expected so the numbers included here are those shown are from a 2003 Wikipedia compilation . The figures listed can easily be projected to present day since, according to the information supplied; these numbers have not changed significantly in decades.

“While the median household income has increased 30% since 1990, it has increased only slightly when considering inflation. In 1990, the median household income was $30,056 or $44,603 in 2003 dollars. While personal income has remained relatively stagnant over the past few decades…” (Subliminal message to sheeple, ignore that word inflation, printing money is good, long term debt is healthy…)

Family income for 50% of American households ran between $45K and $47K. The next major bracket was for those making between $50K and $75K; only 18% of the total families. In other words roughly 70% of all America working families make less than $75K; this data does not take into account the recession which put unemployment over 9% after the Obama administration took charge of the economy.

When Obama said he wanted a “balanced approach” to fixing the budget nothing was mentioned about cutting payroll to the elite among us, our federal workers. An article by Dennis Cauchon in USA Today pointed out the fact that public sector jobs tend to pay almost 20% better than private sector jobs requiring the same job skills.

‘“The data flip the conventional wisdom on its head,” says Cato Institute budget analyst Chris Edwards, a critic of federal pay policy. “Federal workers make substantially more than private workers, not less, in addition to having a large advantage in benefits.”’

The real elite class, our elected representatives, make at least twice the median income of most Americans who are paying their salaries. We actually pay these folks to muck up the budget, to tell us we need to sacrifice more. Our president said we need to “pull off the band-aid” and suck it in. Well isn’t that special.

“The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.” This does not even mention automatic pay raises and side benefits such as tax payer funded staffing which greatly increase the cost of government.

I have an idea; let’s take the federal budget down by 20% starting the first Monday of September, that’s Labor Day for those not looking at a calendar. All federal employees, regardless of position, longevity or pay grade will take an automatic 20% reduction. This won’t hurt nearly as much as being out of work like 9% of Americans unemployed during this recession; come on “rip off that band-aid”!

The EPA has gone out of its way to destroy the coal and petrochemical industry through draconian policies and the EPA is only one of many government bureaucracies. Not only are we paying elitist bureaucrats excessive salaries compared to the median income of most American families; their agenda would seem to run counter to helping the economy recover and I’ve said nothing about how they’ve trampled on individual liberties. Enough!

How about a substantial reduction in salaries paid to elected representatives? These folks are more than willing for average Americans to sacrifice in order to “right the ship”. Why should they be exempted; after all, “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”!

This article has been cross posted to The Moral Liberal , a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government, & The American Constitution”.


MK said...

President obama has redefined saying one thing and doing something totally different. His dishonesty with a straight face simply beggars belief. I think only our own PM can eclipse his lying and hypocrisy.

Oh and when leftards talk about a balanced approach, what they really mean is 50% more spending and 50% more taxes.

When i think back at their promises during election campaigns in both Australia and America, those were actually advance warning of what they were actually going to screw up.

For example if a leftist politician tells you they're going to fix or focus on healthcare, you can be 100% sure that is what they're going to screw up.

America and the world will be better off when barack obama leaves office.

T. F. Stern said...

MK, I like that line, "Oh and when leftards talk about a balanced approach, what they really mean is 50% more spending and 50% more taxes."