OK. I listened to most of the State of the Union address the other night, and I listened to the Republicans' pitiable attempts to rebut it using someone as a spokesman that no-one's ever heard of.
The Libertarians were furious about the speech, and rightly so, since practically everything El Presidente proposed constitutes a massive expansion of the federal government or its powers.
Well, since the Republicans can't get their act together enough to actually mount an effective rebuttal, I will gladly take care of that for you; so the following is my reply to several of the proposals El Presidente blathered about, in no particular order.
I will note here: he challenged "anyone" to present alternative solutions.
Here ya go, Chief.
In response to the notion of a vast expansion of Pell Grants and a massive tax credit towards education, I feel morally obligated to point out that although private colleges and universities can charge whatever they want, the state colleges are tax-supported.
Rather than attempting to "lessen the burden" of school loans - something unknown in the rest of the planet, by the way, only our nation leaves kids in debt before they even get a job - what should be done is require the state colleges - you know, the ones that take federal money - to let in-state students attend tuition-free.
Because there's no reason for them to get per-student federal funds AND charge huge sums of money to the students as well. If you're going to allow government funding at all, then that in and of itself is sufficient. Charge the ass off students from out of state all you want, but students who live down the street from a university shouldn't have to pay the school, if the school is accepting federal funds for educating those same students.
Next, the ridiculous claim that eliminating "tax breaks" for companies that go overseas, and "incentivising" companies that stay here, will result in increased jobs here in the States.
This one's easy. Want jobs in the USA? Cut the corporate income tax. This not only lowers costs for the companies, and encourages them to stay here, but also lowers the shelf price for their goods to every customer, easing the burden on the already shaky economy, and allows consumer dollars to go farther, which eases burdens across the board and actually improves things. You cannot help the problem of "we ain't got money" by taking more money AWAY.
Next, cutting taxes on 95% of Americans - as I note he has claimed before without actual effect - doesn't do anything if most of those people in fact pay no taxes in the first place, and actually receive money each year in transfer payments. The only people who could be affected by this tax cut are the exact people he excluded specifically from it: the folks who make enough money to pay taxes. This is what's known as a giant cartload of horseshit an empty symbolic gesture, guys.
But it gets better.
He also proposed a spending freeze on federal spending. Great idea, as it eliminates - at least for a while - the practice of baselining that I have ranted about before. But see, he then turned around and said that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and "homeland security" will be exempt from this freeze.
So, even if the freeze actually happens - which seems unlikely - let's see what that means, ok? Homeland security - as he euphemistically refers to national defense - is 21% of the fiscal year 2010 budget. Social Security is another 21%. Medicare and Medicaid are 23% more. That means that 65% of the federal budget will be completely untouchable by the proposed freeze - which makes it another giant cartload of horseshit empty symbolic gesture.
However, a means exists to address federal spending AND taxation AND health insurance, all at once.
Look at your last pay stub.
Look at - if you have it - how much your employer-sponsored health insurance and your retirement funds cost, combined.
Save that number.
Now, do the following:
Add together your withholdings for FICA, Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid.
Add to that number, one-half of your federal income tax withholding.
Now, take that number, and compare it to the number you got by adding together your current health insurance and retirement contributions.
They're either about equal, or the taxes are more, aren't they?
But here's the thing - you're currently paying for the health insurance and your retirement funds AFTER paying for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all that other garbage.
So. Address all these problems at one time.
Eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid entirely. You can grandfather out the people who have already paid in, and let them receive payouts equivalent to their contributions, but eliminate those programs entirely.
There goes 44% of the entire federal budget.
And thus, 44% of your income tax withholdings.
And all those huge charges are gone from your pay stub.
And lo and behold, like magic, you're still paying for your own retirement funds, your own health care, but you suddenly have way more money to spend on it.
Economic recovery, yarrr!
I am not addressing in this post the fact that eliminating Medicare and Medicaid would do more than any other single factor to drive DOWN the cost of health insurance and medical treatment; just the fact that you don't have to pay for them anymore would allow you to purchase up to double your current coverage without changing your paycheck one tiny bit.
But in reality, removing those agencies would in fact drive down the cost of health care, and the cost of health insurance; it wouldn't require vast new regulatory agencies; it would allow mroe freedom of choice for employees, and drive employee loyalty to companies who provide the best benefits packages.
It would be a good thing.
Eliminating Social Security, the same; expand existing retirement accounts, and let people have control of them, instead of simply absorbing their money into a never-ending, government-sponsored Ponzi scheme. It's not "everyone's" responsibility to provide for your retirement, chief; it's YOURS, and handing it off to the government doesn't make it less so; it just makes you an idiot. There's nothing - NOTHING - the feds can do that you or I can't do better. Incompetence is enshrined in the federal government, and you trust your RETIREMENT to them?
And finally, I want to address the blather about international trade.
No system of protectionism is necessary. The only reform that is required is that the United States' trade policy should exactly mirror the policies of the nations trading with us; this would address the trade deficits almost instantly. It might suck for other countries, used to being able to sell their products in the USA freely while charging us a fortune for permission to sell our products in their countries, but that wouldn't take long to even out, once they realize it's not optional.
Try these ideas, Mr. President. You asked for them; they will work; they will not expand the government one whit - in fact, cut out about 45% of it - and they will ensure near-instant economic growth of such magnitude that you would forever be lauded as the savior you like to consider yourself to be.
I know you won't.
But you should.
