The uncomfortable truth about minimum wage.

There are times in life when I can argue politics and truly see the point that the other side is making. I may disagree with it, but at least I can see where they are coming from. Other times, it seems like some points-of-view are more than merely a difference of philosophy, but an entirely different thought process that I am incapable of grasping. Lately, I have been struggling a lot with people who think that the answer to poverty is to raise the minimum wage. I can’t even pretend to see the advantage of this move, so it is really hard for me not to come across as smug…try as I might.
For me, the problem starts long before we even get to the point of discussing wages, workers, inflation, and economics. For me, it starts with defining poverty. Hate Capitalism if you like, but the US has reaped many generations of benefit from our imperfect little system. The standard argument is that capitalism makes the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. I venture to say that we have a LOT to learn about poverty in this country. The poorest of the poor in this country still possess more than a large population of the rest of the world. In the US, poor means having to take public transportation, having to eat Ramen Noodles, or not having a smartphone. To much of the world, poverty means that many children starve to death. It means that there is no clean water. It means that there is no safe shelter. That said, my argument begins by thinking that we need to get over our feelings of entitlement and accept that being a poor America would be a dream-life for much of the rest of the world. As our “poor” citizens dream of home ownership and luxury cars, the “poor citizens” in many countries dream of having a meal every day and pray that their starving children live through the night.
With THAT soap-box out of the way, let me address the issue as it begins for most of us: wage disparity.
Is it necessarily fair that a CEO makes $1Million dollars a year and a laborer makes minimum wage? Probably not. I guess. I don’t know. Maybe? Maybe not? The truth is that it doesn’t really matter if it’s fair, because no one ever said that life was fair. It’s not fair that I’m balding. It’s not fair that I was born with only 9 fingers. It’s not fair that I’m not handsome. It’s not fair that I wasn’t born a Kennedy or a Rockefeller. LIFE ISN’T FAIR! We need to get over this feeling of entitlement that we have; this feeling of social-class jealousy. If someone has invested their money, their lives, their blood/sweat/tears into a company to make it a success, why SHOULDN’T they reap the benefits from it without being labeled a monster for being successful? It really does boil down to jealousy. Maybe they were born with the investment capital, maybe they earned it…but we don’t care. They have what we want, so we expect the government to go be the playground bully and beat him up, steal his lunch money, and then share it with us. Our concept of ‘fair’ has been skewing out of control for decades. As with anything in life, when a benefit is given, the first generation is thankful for it, the second generation expects it, and the third generation doesn’t know how to live without it.
So, for argument, we’re going to pretend that it is completely ‘fair’ and equitable to raise minimum wage by, let’s say 10%, for the ease of mathematics. In Illinois, lawmakers are actually throwing around talk of a 20% hike. So, moving away from a paper argument, what would that actually do for a minimum wage worker? For simplicity’s sake, let’s say that they were making about 9 bucks an hour, and with the hike, they would make 10. Currently, they are making about $360/wk, which would increase to about $400/wk. That’s a $160/month increase that would obviously be a welcome change to any of us. But really…is there anyone, and I mean ANYONE who doesn’t think that the business owner (who is now having to pay OUT that increased $160/month/employee) won’t raise their prices to make up the difference? Of course they will. Wages make up a significant part of any business’s expenses. One would be hard-pressed to find a business that would just say, “lose about $160/week for every employee? SURE…why not. The bottom line doesn’t really matter…and hey, if I explain to the electric company why I can’t pay the bill, I’m sure they’ll understand….” Hogwash. The fact is that the total price of consumable goods will increase at about the same proportion that the increase in minimum wage affects their payroll. The worker makes more cash, but the worker’s monthly bills all go up about the same amount. The only thing that we have succeeded in doing is causing an inflation bubble. And quite frankly, I think that we are delusional if we think that the companies won’t pad their pockets and raise prices to slightly ABOVE the new pay matrix.
Again, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that somewhere, there is some relief…that somewhere in that 10%, some companies didn’t quite raise their prices accordingly, and the average worker was actually able to keep some of that cash for himself.... The next question is ‘how far-reaching is this ‘inflation bubble’?’ I believe that it is further-reaching than we can afford. As that worker’s wages went up, and the price of goods followed, we inadvertently caused another problem…we priced ourselves out of the international market.  The US does not exist in a vacuum.  We have to compete with foreign markets; we have to maintain an equitable price. As the price of our products is artificially inflated, we lose our edge to compete in an international market. On the homefront, the opposite happens: foreign goods don’t rise in wholesale price at the same level that domestic products do. That said, one of two things happens. The distributor either raises the prices of the foreign goods, making a higher profit margin, or the distributor chooses to make the same profit margin regardless of wholesale cost, making the foreign product less expensive in the retail market. Either way, the American product becomes more expensive. Will some buy the American product regardless of cost? Yes. Will everyone? No. The end result is American lay-offs and production slow-downs based on the number of people who choose to pay the higher prices. The irony, of course is that the minimum wage worker is getting further and further behind…or worse, laid off…while the business owner is making a higher profit margin selling foreign goods. The truth be told, this has been going on for many years, and is just one of the many reasons that our jobs are going overseas. At some point, the American people need to get back to critical thinking instead of basing our decisions on sound-bytes and feel-good legislation. Too often there are long-term consequences that are never weighed and considered. We've stopped thinking for ourselves.  Instead, we trust the government to do our thinking for us. Then, when this all backfires, the government looks at us and says, “see what a mess this is? You need us more than ever!” No. We need to stop artificially inflating prices and accept the fact that, as long as wages and prices stay relative to each other, it doesn’t matter what the dollar amounts actually are. If we truly want to help the minimum wage worker, the best thing that we, as a country, can do is to stay competitive. Increase our GDP, lower the trade deficit, increase production. As production increases, jobs increase. As production increases and entry-level jobs are created, current jobs increase in pay and responsibility. As production increases, per capita unit pricing lowers. As production increases, growth is required in other areas to sustain the increase in production. Our problem in this country is not that minimum wage is too low. The problem is that production, and therefore jobs, been driven to other markets…often by the very legislation that was designed to make lives better.

US Constitution

I often confuse people with my politics. I align myself with neither major party. Most often, I vote my conscience, but in a "lesser of two evils" kind of way. In all honesty, it gets harder and harder to vote that way because the "lesser of two evils" seems to be more evil than it used to be. Simply, I find that both parties continue to stray further and further from the Constitution and the founding principles of our great country. I doubt that the founding fathers would even recognize our government as the evolutionary child of what they fought for. Now, make no mistake, I understand that change is both necessary and unavoidable. What concerns me is the shift in principles. In fact, the principles and responsibilities of the Federal Government have evolved so much, that it is even arguable that we are based on the Constitution for little more than parliamentary procedure. If most Americans are really honest with themselves, they have little more than a passing knowledge of the Constitution. They had a semester of learning it in grade school and have likely not looked at it since. How, then, can we intelligently elect officials whose purpose is to uphold the constitution? I propose that we can't...and don't. We elect our representatives based on their political party, social leanings, and fiscal beliefs rather than their adherence to the the constitution. So, is the constitution even relevant to our modern society? I suppose that depends on our willingness to allow it to be the fluid document that it was intended to be. Before the constitution was ratified by the original 13 states, there were such points of contention that 10 amendments had to be made before it could be agreed upon. The framers of the constitution as well as those first 10 amendments (the bill or rights), recognized that the country would evolve and made provision for future amendment, as well as making such statements as, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," [tenth amendment] to cover the inevitable situations that would arise. Unlike the articles of confederation, which added the idea of federal powers needing to be "expressly given" power, the language of the tenth amendment was weaker, giving rise to the overpowering counter-force of "implied powers." The problem with "implied" power is that it is up to the individual who is LOSING the power to prove that it was theirs to begin with. The first game-changing test of implied -vs- expressed powers was probably the Civil War. If the states had sovereignty to make their own laws, and the Federal Government was there primarily there to provide for the COMMON defense, and to regulate INTERSTATE commerce, do those powers not imply sovereignty of the individual state? Yes. but, enough sovereignty to secede? For the first time, the Constitution had a paradox in it. The only way to preserve the Union was to say that the Federal Government had more power than the individual states. Yet, in so doing, it redefined, and (in many ways) negated the tenth amendment. Once the Federal Government had the power, it would continually push the envelop of "implied powers" until the Federal Government became the power-wielding organism that it is today. As is true in all of human nature, once power is given, or taken, or assumed...it is substantially harder to take it away. And so, this is where the Republicans and Democrats are the same: the thirst to be the party with the power. If the Constitution is going to stay relevant, that power will need to be weaned away. Fortunately, it can be. The power hemorrhage can be stopped by the States at a Constitutional Convention. I believe that we need a Constitutional Convention more than we need anything else in this country. More than a certain party gaining control. More than laws and social issues being fixed. Even more than jobs and economic security, I believe that we need a Constitutional Convention. In my humble opinion, the collapse of this country is imminent without a fundamental shift in power AWAY from the Federal Government and back to the States and local municipalities. Although I believe that there are several amendments that need to be discussed at a convention, the applicable one here is adding the word "expressly given" to the tenth amendment. We have been fed a lie for the past several generations, and that lie is that we need the federal government to take care of us. That somehow, we are incapable of surviving without the government there to make decisions for us. As we have slowly believed this lie...and more-so with each passing generations...we have just come to accept that this is the way that things are supposed to be, and that our government ultimately has our best interest in mind. As I've said for many years, 'never trust anyone who makes a living off of you.' You see, I believe in the original idea of the tenth amendment, as stated in the federalist papers, that the purpose of the federal government was for protecting the borders, and regulating commerce between the states, and settling disputes, NOT to be our "boss." Our government was originally powered like a pyramid. The local governments had the most direct powers, unless EXPRESSLY limited by the state government. The state government, then, had the next level of power. The Federal Government was there to settle disputes, regarding the constitutionality of laws. It was no one's "boss." We have to change our thinking. We have to change the taxation system to reflect this. What is the purpose of sending our tax dollars to be filtered through a ravenously greedy system, and then sent back to us by way of credits, subsidies, and programs. We forget the government has no way to make any money, in and of itself. The money that is doled out was ours to begin with. How can anyone in Washington have any real clue about what goes on in Adeline IL? They can't...which is why there are representatives...who serve an entire state or an entire district. We've got the pyramid upside down. We keep the smallest amount of monies and the least amount of control local. Then we give the state more money and more control. Finally, the Federal Government takes everything that it wants. And the truth be known, the Federal Government is so huge that there is really no way to audit how efficient it is. At bare minimum, we know that it is parasitic, as it has no source of revenue outside of the taxpayer. So, is our constitution still relevant? I suppose that it is as relevant as we choose to let it be.

Primaries

Today is the GOP primary in Florida. The media is pretending to be excited. The GOP is pretending to be excited. Probably the only person in the country who is truly excited is Barack Obama, as he watches the two front-runners dig up enough garbage to make sure that neither one of them is electable in the general election.
As an independent, this has been a tough year to watch GOP politics. In full GOP fashion, they have failed to assess the heartbeat of the nation. The nation cries, "We need jobs." The GOP replies, "We hear you...we don't homos to be able to marry as well!" The nation cries, "Help us to not lose our homes." The GOP replies, "Why yes, let's outlaw abortion!"
The GOP has sold its soul to the religious right. And its ironic, because it has caused them to advocate the very things that they once stood against. The GOP was founded on the principles of maintaining the basics of the "Republic." (No, we are not a democracy and we never have been; if you don't understand why, look it up.) The GOP gained its standing in the political system by promoting two basic ideas: First, that there needs to be a lean federal budget. Secondly, that the way to accomplish that is to follow the constitution, particularly the 10th amendment which gives all peri-constitutional rights to the individual states to determine. If this was what the GOP PRACTICED, I would be a whole-hearted Republican. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The GOP says that we need to trim the budget and cut federal spending. Yet, who was the last Republican President (or congress) that actually did that? They preach, "spend less" but they practice, "spend it on different things." They preach, "limited federal government" but they practice, "make federal laws governing social issues."
And so I sit, as an independent. I watch the past 3 years of spend, spend, spend (and control)...and then I have to look at the Republicans in the primaries who want to control, control, control (and spend).
I truly believe that it is time to stop electing career politicians. We are in finacial trouble. What we need is someone who has a proven track-record of making businesses work (preferrably without a bailout). Get the government out of social decisions and make them focus on what the constitution lays out as governmental duties.

OWS

I have had a lot of people ask my opinion of the OWS movement. This week, several people, up to and including the President, likened OWS to the Tea Party. This has had some wide-spread and varying levels of both acceptance and anger. The pic that I have attached, which may or may not be readable, had some good points (and some arrogant points) that I thought deserved some attention. So, here goes:

The original outcry of the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party was against the over-taxation of the citizens to pay for the gluttony of the government. The Tea Party voiced opposition to 'favored' businesses (aka businesses that were giving millions of dollars in lobby money in exchange for special treatment) receiving "special treatment." The Tea Party opposed laying the price of the failed banking industry on the backs of the tax-payers.
Ironically, I could remove the words "Tea Party" from that entire paragraph and replace it with "OWS movement" and be completely correct. As is often true in politics, the goals are similar...it's the application that is different. Both groups had similar goals but launched into completely different directions. The Tea Party took the approach of infilitrating the Government and fixing it. OWS took the approach of taking the streets to make the Government listen. I'm not defending or attacking either approach, as both have had success in our country as well as others. The problems always come in when a group loses focus of it's goals and objectives. The Tea Party made waves about "special treatment" for businesses and "too much federal government" and then (as soon as they had the nation stage) proclaimed that raising any tax on the "specially treated" businesses was wrong, and that part of "limiting" the federal government should be by GIVING the government power over social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc). They lost their effectiveness because they lost sight of their primary objective.
Conversely, OWS started marching for the same goals. But their protests are aimed at people who not only aren't listening, but at people who don't HAVE to listen. I doubt that there is a single billionaire investor on the planet that sets his own feet in the NYSE to do trading. He doesn't care if the streets are filled with protestors. In fact, he is dining sumptuously because all of the protesters are buying food and supplies from companies that he has invested in. If their presence causes a ripple in the banking industry, he doesn't care. He's invested for the long haul. The ripples across the banking industry and stock market only affect those people who have smaller investments...like 401K's. If the industies collapsed, the people hurt the most (percentage wise) would not be the billionaires, it would be the middle-class who have saved their entire lives to be able to retire.
To me, both movements are spinning their wheels. If OWS truly wants to make an impact, they should learn a couple of lessons from the Tea Party. Stop protesting on Wall Street. Go protest in front of the Governor's mansion and the State Building. Demand that a constitutional convention be called to stop lobby-money bribes. Demand that an amendments be drawn up and ratified. In order to be effective, one has to realize where differences can be made. The local and state officials need to be re-elected to survive. The Wall Street billionaires don't. The time and energy is being mis-directed.
Truthfully, I'm scared of the misdirection. As these mobs grow, and the clashes increase, eventually mass rioting will ensue. Mobs are not known for making great, rational decisions. They generally lead to destruction, followed by looting and chaos. These will never be good for our country, especially when we have enemies who would love an opportunity to catch us unaware.
My advice for the day:
Tea Party: Get your morality out of your politics. 'Adam and Steve' have NOTHING to do with limited federal government and fixing out-of-control spending. At some point, you may have to give up one to achieve the other. Make your choice now. If you continue to push candidates who are socially conservative in a country that is NOT socially conservative anymore, you will end up giving the election to people wha are socially liberal AND economically liberal. By trying to tack-on morality, you are puching moderates into the liberal camp.
OWS: Direct your efforts to get things changed at the people who can actually change them. It's ok to be angry. It's ok to recognize that things aren't fair. It's better to do something constructive about it. Blocking the common man from getting to work or getting on the subway is not helping your cause. Go cause friction with the people who need your votes.

Now, let's see if I can get myself detained by the new powers that the government is voting itself....

Todays rant.

Angry Rant

I have suddenly been pushed to my limits of annoyance. I am secretly hoping for subzero temps so that the “Occupiers” will go home. They are nothing but an angry mob of idiots. While I understand the anger of taking billions of dollars in bailout money and then giving themselves millions in bonuses, I find the anger to be mis-placed. If the government walked up to the average citizen and offered them a million dollars for no really good reason, I wonder how many would turn it down. Most of us would take it...which makes us hypocrits. Wall Street is as much a victim of the government welfare as the “welfare class” is.
Ultimately, what irritates me about the protesters is that they have no demands. They have no rallying point about what they hope to accomplish. When there ceases to be a point of concession, they cease to be a hopeful rally and become nothing more than an angry mob.
Well, guess what? I’m angry as well. Only I’m not angry at a Free-Market System, because I have a CHOICE when it comes to where and when I spend my money. I’m angry at a Government that taxes the hell out of me and gives the money *to* the system. “Too big to fail” is a problem. And the problem is that we allowed a few businesses to become the cornerstone of our economy, so we CAN’T let them fail without causing a major depression. And so the GOVERNMENT, NOT WALL STREET, takes my money and bails them out. The company recovers, but the new-found recovery money NEVER makes its way back to the taxpayers who LOANED them the recovery money…it goes back into the pockets of the very men who caused the failure to begin with…followed by a pat on the back from the Government, who incidentally happened to get a little lobby-money on the side.
My anger is about CHOICE. The government has taken my choices away. I choose to buy a product because it has higher quality and is less expensive. How DARE our government then tax me to prop up the crappy company? Let them succeed on their own merits or let them fail in their incompetence!
“Too big to fail” happened BECAUSE of our OWN laziness and greed, NOT Wall Street’s. We stopped buying that microwave at Ma & Pa’s electric shop because Walmart was cheaper. We stopped buying that Stove from Ma & Pa’s appliance store because Home Depot was cheaper. We stopped buying our textiles from the local variety store because Target was cheaper. We stopped buying meat from the local butcher because Jewel’s imported beef is cheaper. WE bankrupted the middle class away and now complain that CApitalism is making the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. WE’RE the ones who made the poor, poorer and the rich, richer EVERY time we spent a dollar at the conglomerates instead of in our neighborhood shops. STOP blaming Capitalism, we did this to ourselves! These Ma & Pa shops that used to have 5 or 6 middle-class employees closed down, bankrupt. Their employees end up working for minimum wage at Menard’s (that’s WHY their products are so cheap, BTW), and we complain that the rich guy is oppressing the poor. No, my friend, WE did this TO them!
So now where are we? We are a country full of consumers, in bondage to the corporations that we built by our petty greed…and now we’re pissed off at them. As the old saying goes, ‘you made your bed, now lie in it.’ But that’s not what we want to do. We want to “Occupy Wall Street” and blame them for taking the money that we threw to them.
Knock it off. If you don’t like Wall Street, stop giving them your money. Buy local, stop using credit cards, stop second-mortgaging your life away. Learn to live within your means. And if you’re going to protest, protest the Government’s involvement in giving away your hard-earned tax dollars.

I believe.

I’m an unashamed capitalist and a 10th amendment libertarian. This means that Republicans and Democrats both hate me…and both love me…depending on the issues at hand.

I believe that Capitalism is imperfect.
I believe that any other financial system is worse.
I believe that “taking from those who have and giving it to those who do not,” demotivates everyone from working harder. If 10% of my wealth is going to be “redistributed” then I’ll just work 10% less and keep what I have.
I believe this sentiment is shared by people who make $10,000 a year or $10,000,000 a year. This is why over-taxing the rich backfires EVERY time, REGARDLESS of what *seems* fair.
I believe that rich corporations will find ways to stay rich. If over-taxed, or fined, or EPA’ed to death, the corporations will cut costs to maintain profits. Those cost-cuts are typically either the loss of American jobs or increased prices…both scenarios hit the poor and the middle-class the hardest.
I believe in the concept of equilibrium. There is a teeter-totter that would find its own balance if the federal government would allow it to reach an equilibrium on its own.
I believe that it is NOT the government’s job to create jobs or take care of people. It is the job of the government to maintain a climate that promotes growth and prosperity…the best way to do this is for the government to butt-out. The most destructive force to the common man is a power-hungry politician…far more dangerous than a rich mogul. The rich man is smart enough to know that his continued profits rest on the prosperity of his business.
I believe that Bill Clinton signing NAFTA into law caused at least 40% of the current economic breakdown.
I believe that Jimmy Carter signing the Community Reinvestment Act of 1976 caused another 40%. Just as Herbert Hoover was blamed for the great depression, G. W. Bush took the helm of the Titanic just before the iceberg was sighted. NOT that he did much to steer it to safety….
I believe that Bill Clinton was probably more fiscally conservative than G. W. Bush. The difference was the advisors that they surrounded themselves with.
I believe that entitlements don’t help people move on; they cause people to become more dependent. Entitlement breeds more entitlement.
I believe that no one simply “deserves” something for nothing. If people are in need, put them to work…don’t just hand them a link card, a medical card, and a rent voucher.
I believe that people receiving aid should have to pee in a cup. I have to be drug-free in order to work, why in HELL should they NOT have to be in order to keep NOT working???
I believe that our court system is overcrowded due to stupid laws and loopholes. Raise fines, and disbar sleazy lawyers…use the prisons for the people are a menace to society, not the people who jay-walk too often.
I believe that prison is NOT just for rehabilitation. As it turns out, it *IS* a punishment too. Cut the cable cord, conjugal visits, and the gyms. Re-introduce hard labor and chain-gangs. Let’s make prison a bad place to be.
I believe that legalizing conceal-and-carry laws would eventually reduce crime…since currently the only people who conceal-and-carry are criminals, what could it hurt? I can’t speak for criminals, but I’d think twice about mugging someone if there was a 50/50 chance that they had a .357 under their jacket.
I believe that Immigrants should have to conform to the ways, customs, and laws of America…NOT the other way around. If you don’t like our ways, go home.
I believe that trying to apologize and/or make retribution for the past is stupid. I can’t change the fact that my great great-grandfather wronged your great great-grandfather. Your OWN choices in your OWN life brought you to where you are today, not some story to a distant past. Accept responsibility for your actions and let’s go have a beer.
I believe that politics has become an exercise in futility. Political positioning and party-loyalty has taken away all responsibility and common sense. It’s been replaced with radicals being elected, in an attempt to *undo* what the LAST radical did….
I believe that this polarization would cause a civil war if we weren’t such a lazy nation.
I believe I’m sufficiently depressed now.

stop whining and DO something...

I received several emails relating to a blog post that I made several months ago. The emails were really good and made some very strong statements that I think that every American needs to hear. For this reason, I am reposting the following blog entry:

One of the most frustrating things for me, as an American Citizen, is the disconnect between our government elitists and the patriots that they are elected to represent. Our founding fathers formed this country on a platform of anti-establishmentarianism. The framers of our constitution had just seen, first-hand, the ugly truths of monarchies and lack of true representation. They framed the constitution on the idea of citizen-governments representing the common man. Citizens would be elected, serve, and then return to their lives. Reading any of the documents written by our founding fathers will easily show us that they were fighting against the idea of political elitists…perhaps what we would call ‘career politicians.’ They spoke out against the idea of a strong federal government. They recognized that the stronger the federal government, the weaker the people.
So now we sit, some 220 years later, and what do we see in our government? We see decisions made against the will of the people. We see political elitists sit in congress for decades. We see politicians make laws for themselves: They vote themselves raises; they vote themselves pensions; they vote themselves their own cost-free healthcare system; they make laws that exempt them from minor traffic violations if they are on their way to work. They pass the cost of this on to taxpayer without any citizen representation. We have embraced the Government that the colonists fought and died to free us from. Make no mistake, I love my country, and I love the constitution. I just don’t believe that we are the country that we used to be because we fail to abide by the constitution that once governed us.

I believe that it is time for a Constitutional Convention. These can only be called under two circumstances: called by Congress or called by Governors. Obviously, Congress is not going to limit their own powers, so I call on the Governors…and I call on citizens to contact their Governors to call a Constitutional Convention.

Once called, there needs to be several items on the agenda. Once these items become Amendments to the Constitution, I believe that a huge number of problems in this country would solve themselves.

Amendment # 28. Congress shall pass no laws that pertain solely to themselves and Congress shall pass no laws that exclude themselves. Congress shall not have its own pension plan (they can contribute to their own retirement, like the rest of us. Make them retire on Social Security, and we’ll see how quickly SS issues get fixed). Congress shall not have its own Healthcare plan (they can have the same healthcare program that they have forced on the rest of the country. Again, we’ll be surprised how quickly Healthcare reform and Medicare get fixed if they have to depend on them.)

Amendment #29. There shall be a term limit for all federally elected officials. The term shall be limited to two back-to-back terms and shall apply to any and all elected positions. After one fallow term, any official is eligible to run for any office.

Amendment #30. There shall be a balanced budget. In the event that a balanced budget can not be reached by the appointed (and non-extendable) due date, the government shuts down all non-military services, including salaries. Seven days later, each district will hold a “no-confidence” vote pertaining to their congressional representatives and the President. A negative vote of 50% will cause the representative’s opponent (to be determined by the number of votes cast in the last election) to assume the seat. A positive vote of 50.01% allows another seven days for a budget to be reached. If a budget is still not reached, the representative’s opponent in the last election automatically assumes the seat. The new officials shall receive no pay until a budget agreement is reached.

Amendment #31. Maintaining a balanced budget. The Federal budget must remain balanced throughout each year. Any newly proposed bill/law must be budget-neutral or it can not take effect until it is completely funded by a new year’s budget. Any bill/law that is passed, but unexpectedly becomes budget-negative is immediately withdrawn. Any department that operates outside of their budget closes down as soon as their allotted budget is expended.
The only exceptions to maintaining a balanced budget are in times of unforeseen catastrophe. In these cases, the budget can be over-ridden by a 66% Congressional vote. This vote is only valid until the end of the current budget. At the next budget, the catastrophe monies must be repaid as part of the new budget. Any on-going monies must be included in the budget. The only exception is war-time. Wartime expenses require a 66% vote of Congress, and must be reimbursed by the next year’s budget.

Amendment #32. There shall be no National Debt. Until the time that the debt has been paid down, all interest plus two percent of the debt’s principle shall be a mandatory part of each year’s annual balanced budget until such time that the debt is eliminated.


How’s this for a start? I really…REALLY encourage every person that reads this (and agrees with it) to forward it to as many people as you can…but more so, I encourage you to pressure your governmental officials by making sure that your senators, representatives, and governor are on your list of forwards…. Most constitutional amendments came to reality because of public outcry, NOT because of political lipservice. There is no such thing as an armchair-citizen. You are either part of the problem or part of the solution!