Conservatives are right on this one. Let's get on board . . . [View All]

[flamin lib]

Conservatives are fond of saying that we need to run our government like families have to run their households. Okay, I’m up with that. Maybe we should consider how families run their households.

A family must match their income and outgo. We all have basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. There are two ways to meet those needs; garner enough income to meet them or borrow to meet them. A prudent family will apply their talents and earn enough to meet those needs. Should the needs change, say a new baby is added, the prudent family will increase the income even if a second job is needed. Sometimes short-term events such as a car repair will require even more effort for the short term or short-term deficit spending by using credit. Never will a prudent family borrow money for every day expenses unless forced by extreme circumstances and never will a prudent family intentionally decrease its income in the face of it’s needs.

So it is with our country; it has needs. According to the Preamble to the Constitution those needs are “(to) establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” To do that the constitution in Article 1 section 8 provides that the congress “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; (and) To borrow money on the credit of the United States.”

However, since 1960 the government has steadily decreased it’s income (taxes) even as it’s needs have increased. The top marginal rate for the wealthy has decreased from a maximum of 91% (on income over $40,000,000 in 2009 money) under Eisenhower to only 35% today. Given that the top 10% of incomes control more wealth than the remaining 90% one has to ask, “Wuz up with that?” Further considering that as the population grows so do our needs and expenses engenders the question, “WTF is up with that?” Also since 1980 the maximum rate on investment income has fallen from the same as earned income to just 15% which leads one to ask, “How effin’ stupid is that?” When the country went to war in Iraq the government decreased income (taxes) even more and made up the difference by borrowing which begs to the question, “What crazy MF’er is runnin’ this place?”

In 1929, just before the great depression, the top 1% of income earners controlled 20% of the wealth. With the help of prudent tax reform, considerable oversight of the financial sector and enforcement by government agencies that number fell to 9% where it remained until 1980 and everybody propsered. Since 1980, because of de-regulation, tax policy and lack of enforcement thru starvation of agency budgets, that 1% has once again risen to control 19% of the wealth in the country. De ja vu all over again.

So, NO, we don’t need to cut spending. We need to increase income (taxes). Period, end of statement.