Washington Arms

 

We face a fiscal crisis. Not just in the United States but in many countries around the world. So if there are problems in Europe there will be repercussions here – and vice versa. There's not much we can do about Greece or Spain. Europe, and its Economic Union, have to solve those problems and, without doubt, they're working on it. We can only hope that they're successful. Which leaves us to focus on our own situation.

The debt crisis and debt ceiling are issues that aren't as much in the news as they were a few months ago – at least in the media – but we don't seem to be any closer to a solution of those problems than we were then. So this may be a good time to review the situation and, perhaps, offer a few suggestions to improve our condition. In the absence of a method for creating real governmental wealth,^i,ii the two main mechanisms for managing the situation are the same on a national basis as they are in more modest settings – what goes out should not exceed what comes in. At least that's what used to be viewed as responsible money management.ⁱⁱⁱ So that's the route I'll follow.

First of all there's income. The vast majority of that comes from taxes of one sort or another. As is the case with any rule, some have found a way around them. There are tax breaks and benefits enjoyed by the rich – both as individuals and companies. So the first step is to eliminate those benefits. It may not help that much^iv – there aren't all that many “super rich” – but we'll all feel better if we make them suffer like everyone else.^v So the real help will have to come from the rest of us. But, as I've noted in the past, Congress has taken taxation far beyond what the Founding Fathers originally included in the Constitution, and the general population^vi will react negatively to any increased taxes.^vii Nonetheless, some nominal increase will have to be imposed – if only to demonstrate the idea of shared responsibility.

The real change though – the one that can bring us closer to a balanced budget – has to relate to the outgo rather than the income. And it is not unreasonable to look for an improvement in the lives of our citizens along with a cut in costs. We have always assumed that we can solve problems by “throwing money” at them, but perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps we can save money by solving some of the problems at which we now throw money. Here are a few suggestions.

Eliminate Congress and the Pentagon. No. Not the functions^viii but the physical plants. At least move the activities to lower cost property. In fact, with video conferencing and the ability to vote over the internet, it is difficult to imagine why members of Congress need to leave their houses at all. The savings in travel and housing should be significant, and the Representatives will have more opportunity to hear from their constituents^ix if they are at all interested. Of course that will mean an increase in costs to the lobbyists, but their employers will pass them on to consumers resulting in higher prices and a boost to the economy.

There is also no need to use expensive property in Virginia to house the military complex. The government owns lots of land in more desolate areas, and the construction of scattered buildings in various wilderness areas would improve the local economies in those places^x and make terrorist attacks more difficult. No single attack could damage more than a small part of our military facilities. Communications systems between them, like those for Congress, could be handled electronically – especially since they're probably managed that way now, with telephone calls from office to office. The scattering of generals and admirals around the country, though it may improve their safety, could provoke terrorists to attack civilians, but there are so many of them that it won't matter much.

What about those civilians? Although the Founding Fathers (and presumably the Mothers as well) didn't envision the new government taking responsibility for all their needs, entitlements are now a given. Do entitlements extend beyond Medicare, Medicaid, Food stamps, welfare, and the like? All of them are burdens on our economy. How can we get them working for us? Perhaps we could take the now abandoned Pentagon and Congressional Office Buildings and subdivide them into apartments for the poor and homeless. Make those buildings into taxpayers instead of drains. A lot of those who now receive disbursements from the Treasury could get jobs in the construction trades working on those buildings and wind up paying taxes. And they would eventually get places to live in central locations.^xi Another possible piece of real estate which could be used is the White House. The President, like Congress, could work from home. Think of the money we'd save. (Each of those buildings also has a lot of unused land around it and the addition of more apartments would be a great benefit in all the ways already mentioned. Land developers would have a field day.) The prestige of the locations would encourage bidding for the apartments newly available and may even result in their being turned into condos.^xii The Pentagon could be renamed “The Washington Arms,” the Senate and House of Representatives might be relabeled “Congressional Alms,” and the White House, well the White House would certainly keep its old name.

Social Security is also very costly. We talk about increasing the age necessary to receive benefits but there are too many opposed to such an action. And rightly so. All it does is increase the number of working years, resulting in increased competition for jobs and a high rate of unemployment. We'd be better served if we lowered retirement age, paring back the payments if necessary. It might be necessary to increase the Social Security levy in order to do so, but people would probably be willing to pay to retire early. That would make more jobs available for the unemployed and increase tax revenues. And it would cut the costs of unemployment payments, food stamps, and welfare. Many of those unemployed could probably be trained to be medical providers and, even with limited training, they could provide many of the services now offered by doctors through Medicaid and Medicare, at lower cost. If the medical care they receive isn't very good and they die young, all the better – at least in terms of costs. We spend too much trying to make people better. Rationed care, as is offered in many other countries, would save us a lot.

Another big cost is that for defense. Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run if we built up our supply of armaments and then used them to destroy everyone else. Savings would be significant if we no longer had to send troops to protect other countries – and we wouldn't have to do so if we had destroyed our enemies, and our friends no longer existed. It would not be necessary to spend the huge costs of weapons development and maintenance of personnel. We could decrease the size of our armed forces. That would mean the addition of many to the work force, but they could be employed rebuilding the countries we destroyed. Costs would be paid out of the resources of those countries, resources that would now be ours. And once some of those countries reconstituted themselves, we could rent them our military as mercenaries. It would be to naïve to suggest that we would no longer need a military, but its size, and the expenses it incurs, could certainly be reduced.

There are certain means available to the government that might be used to increase revenue – apart from taxation. The first step I'd take is the nationalization of the paper industry. Irrespective of computer advances, the government is addicted to paper printouts of everything. And that's a lot. All Congress has to do is to authorize a department to regulate something and there are certain to be thousands of pages of regulations resulting. When they are printed, with thousands of copies required, a lot of paper has been consumed. Since there is no end to what Congress can regulate, there is no end to our need for paper. Why pay for it when we can own it? And while we're at it, we should be regulating private industry and selling them the thousands of pages of regulations we print.

Private industry would also be a likely target for the sale of government information – no, not the material we label as secret to hide mistakes and mismanagement, but census information which would be useful to marketers. And we should take the DNA of every newborn and naturalized citizen both for our own use and for sale. Sale of excess government land and National Parks would also bring in a great deal of money. We're only hoarding it for a bunch of well-off hikers.

Another big problem we can solve while saving money is that of hunger. If Congress feels the need to give special subsidies to the agricultural giants that are fixing prices and impoverishing all of us, they could be made to provide food for the poor so the government doesn't have to do so. Of course that means that our prices will be higher, but we won't be able to blame it on taxes – only on those giant corporations, and they don't care what we think anyway. In an analogous way, gasoline companies might be required to provide fuel for government vehicles. That would save a lot of money when it comes to the Federal budget. It may hit our personal budgets when we pay higher prices for gas, but we have to drive so we'll continue to do so.

Anyway, that's a start. I'm sure there are other steps we can take to control our debt. At least the public debt if not our private ones. Modern times offer us modern opportunities.

 

Next episode: “F U cn rd ths …” – If you can't, go back to prehistoric times.

 

 

i     Not just printing more money.

ii    There are some, however, and I'll offer some suggestions presently.

iii    It is hard to deny that not everyone accepts this formulation. There are many who contend that borrowing to invest in the future is the only way to strengthen the economy. The fourteen and a half trillion dollar debt we've amassed should not be viewed as in any way negating this philosophy. All we need to do to get out of the mess we're in is to double down. Or, at least, up the ante.

iv    A letter to the New York Times dated August 17, 2011 states: “The Internal Revenue Service's own statistics indicate that if the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (households with annual income of more than $380,000) were taxed at a rate of 100 percent, it would net $938 million, which would barely make a dent in the nation's multitrillion dollar annual budget.” And, of course, no one is proposing a tax rate that high – even for (or against, depending on your perspective) the rich.

v     In fact, they should suffer even more than we do. They can afford it.

vi     Not to mention the Republicans.

vii    Many view the disbursement of “entitlements” as charity which, however meritorious, should be a private matter, not a public one. Individuals should not be forced to give charity. But such a parsimonious attitude doesn't deserve consideration. Of course taxpayers should be required to pick up the tab to ensure equality.

viii    And of course not their “perqs” and benefits, which they get directly and in the form of inside information on which they can act before it becomes public. And the valuable inducements they receive from lobbyists and others eager to earn their favor.

ix    Original discussions of the Constitution placed representation at no more than one Representative per 30 thousand constituents (a number some viewed as too high). It's about one per 718 thousand now. If we can't increase representation, perhaps we can get our “Representatives” closer to us.

x     It's likely that new communities would rise around the new office buildings, and land developers would be quick to build additional homes, malls, and offices there. That would require, among other things, more transportation facilities, cell phone towers, energy sources (green), and roads. A building boom with lots of jobs is certain to result.

xi    Alternatively they could be moved to other government land where they could get forty acres and a used car. We need more farmers, though multinational corporations are doing very well (for their stockholders) in that regard. They would probably buy the land given to the homesteaders and thus enrich them. But only someone who is biased would believe that the poor are not as entitled as we to live in prime locations. And they may not wish to be farmers. They may prefer to be politicians. However the more spread out the politicians are, the better.

xii     And if the bidding gets too high because those who are better off want those addresses, the spaces they leave would probably become available at reasonable prices for the poor.