A Modest Proposal

The debt ceiling crisis is quickly reaching a head. Pundits are predicting an economic collapse that would make the Great Recession of 2008 pale in comparison. President Obama and Speaker Boehner are calling dueling press conferences to lay blame on each other. According to Obama, Republicans don't know the meaning of the word "compromise." According to Boehner, the President is only interested in positioning himself for a 2012 race. Legislators on both sides of the aisle are coming up with alternative fixes. Republican fixes employ entitlement cuts while looking at any talk of increased tax revenue as anathema. Democratic fixers increasingly cave in with each new idea. Democratic proposals already look like Republican positions held just a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, hapless little people, small businessmen, and even Chinese lenders are in a quandary. They don't know what to do with their money until something is resolved.

It is into this dismal state of affairs that I must reluctantly offer a modest proposal. Reluctant because I loathe the approbation that will surely follow Many will say, "It is about time he weighed in." Detractors will ask me to go back to handyman work and butt out of things I don't understand.

I fear it will be the same reaction I suffered in response to my Great Supreme Court Solution. Since we can predict with uncanny accuracy the votes of the four conservatives as well as the votes of the four liberal justices, the vast majority of cases are decided by Justice Kennedy.

We could save a lot of money and needless media attention if we simply eliminated the eight predictable votes and let Kennedy write each decision. We could sell the building--it is an impressive edifice and would be sure to get a good price--to a consortium of insurance companies. The move would be easy, since most insurers have already set up shop there. We would insist, however, that they set aside suitable office space for our one remaining juror.

When I suggested this solution to some of my conservative friends at the Y, they looked at me askance. One even suggested that I was being irreverent. It is just as I suspected. Conservatives are not really serious about reducing the deficit.

It is in this spirit that I offer a multi-faceted proposal, not only ending gridlock in our nation's capital, but also going a long way toward reducing our deficit in the next ten years. And all of this will happen without raising taxes, which is, when you get right down to it, the only thing anyone cares about anyway.

A RESTRUCTURING OF WASHINGTON: TAKING PRIVATIZATION TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION

Start by simply eliminating ALL elected officials on the federal level, plus the Supreme Court. In their place, I suggest a CPA-in-Chief along with a computer system that simply tallies the amount of money flowing into Washington designed to influence legislation. The CPA-in-Chief would post on Facebook a deadline for all influence cash and base all new laws and initiatives on the amount of money for or against. The side with the most cash wins. The new issues to be legislated would be initiated by the people and would be considered by the CPA-in-Chief based on how much money accompanied each new petition.

A divisive issue like health care would no longer have to go through a long and public debate. It would instead be quickly and easily decided. If, for instance, insurance companies managed to give more money to our national coffers than uninsured homeless people, then health insurance would not be enacted and we could all get on with our lives. This will have the added benefit of forcing all those sick homeless types to get off the public dole and start taking responsibility for their own lives. They will thank us one day.

Look at the savings!

There are 100 senators and 435 representatives in D.C. They each get paid $174,000 a year. Eliminate those 535 positions for a yearly savings of $93,090,000. That is nearly a one billion dollar savings over ten years.

The nine justices of the Supreme Court each make $213,000. Eliminate those nine positions and save nearly $2 million, a ten year savings of $20 million.

The President earns $400,000/year, plus $169,000 in expenses, travel allowance, and entertainment. Eliminate that position; save $5, 690,000 in ten years. Save another $2,307,000 by getting rid of the Vice-President.

That just scratches the surface. Each senator and representative has an average sized staff of ten, each earning an average of $50,000/year, $500,000 in ten years. Lose those 5,350 staffers and save $2,675,000,000 over the next decade.

The Supremes each have ten staffers at the same salary. Ten year savings $45,000,000.

The President and First Lady have 50 staffers between them. It is actually more than that, but who's counting. So, 50 times $500,000 over ten years represents a savings of $25,000,000. For the sake of argument, let's add another $15,000,000 for the Vice-President.

The total, rounding up or down as appropriate, is $6,114,000,000.

At first that sounds like just a drop in the bucket. But remember, this figure does not include the money pouring into our nation's coffers as big business expands its efforts to control legislation. It also doesn't take into account the savings to be enjoyed by this rather major streamlining of government. I think it is safe to say that when all the figures (There might be one or two factors I haven't considered.) are finally added up, we will be approaching the kind of numbers being thrown around in the debt ceiling debate.

And think of the ancillary benefits. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CSPAN, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, and the rest would all be history. The savings in public angst along make my proposal worthy of your consideration.