Day 1 of MY Presidency

 

The national debt currently sits at $35 trillion. Side note: that number does not include the federal employee pension liability that according to some estimates range as high as $1 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office that national debt number is projected to top $56 trillion by 2034. The CBO is projecting the current 2024 fiscal year deficit will equal about $1.6 trillion which means our government is spending $1.6 trillion more than it takes in each year. For emphasis, $1.6 trillion is the number 1.6 followed by 12 zeros. One thousand thousand million dollars. This inexcusable deficit is expected to grow every year towards that 2034 $56 trillion debt number.

Does it make sense to any rational person that a government can spend nearly $1.6 trillion more than it takes in? Do we as individuals have the ability to spend nearly30% more than we take in? What happens when we can no longer spend more than we take in? Basically, when our liabilities far exceed our assets? Has any one heard of the word Bankruptcy?

So, what can be done about it? The short answer is not a lot. As we have seen, there currently is no political will within either party to talk about cuts. Most discussion centers around growing the annual tax receipts by either 1) increasing tax receipts directly through taxation or 2) increasing tax receipts through growing the GDP or 3) some combination of the two. Basically, increasing revenues, decreasing spending, or a combination of both.  However, the only solution proposed by either party is a revenue increasing approach. There are literally ZERO proposals on the table that make any meaningful spending cuts to the runaway drunken sailor spending of our government.

Most people in private business when faced with such a daunting imbalance approach the problem with a two-pronged cost cutting and revenue generating approach. And in almost all cases, in private enterprise, cost cutting of some form is the first step and generally the fasted way to get some improvement of the problem. But please don’t get me wrong, the easier solution in private business, the solution that generally leads to the most sustainable result is a revenue generation model. After all, it is very difficult to cost cut your way to profitability. On the other hand, if revenue increasing is not easily or reliably attainable, the cost cutting route must be taken in earnest. And that is what we are facing with our government spending problem.

So, what would I do day 1? Well, it’s not difficult to guess. I would order that within the first 90 days of my presidency, all departments in all areas of the federal bureaucracy would be ordered to make a 5% across the board cut in spending, and an further an additional 5% within 180 days totaling to a 10% cut in the first 6 months of my presidency. In order to maintain the potency of the first day action and not to get priorities confused or co-mingled, I would not take any other action that first day. This spending cut initiative would stand alone, as it should, to reflect the importance to our country that we gain fiscal sanity back. 

Think it can be done? Ask yourself this: “if I had to, could I reduce my own spending by 10% within 180 days?” While it may not be easy or comfortable, the fact of the matter is you all have already made 10% cuts. As a matter of fact, you’ve made close to 30% cuts in spending. How you say? With Bidenomics the cost of virtually everything you buy has gone up between 30 and 50% with food, gas, and housing as obvious and major cost drivers. When you go to the store you pay almost 50% more for a bag of groceries that you did 4 years ago. Conversely, your money buys 50% less that it did 4 years ago so effectively you have faced a 50% cut in consumption. Every person that eats, drives, and lives is paying more than they were 4 years ago. And by virtue of that, you have modified your spending or consummation patterns by nearly 50%. All Americans have made these tough cuts…with no choice of their own. So please don’t tell me a 10% cut by the government cannot be done! And that is precisely what I would order to be done on DAY 1.

Is the Supreme Court really out of step?

Ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, and even prior to that event, democrats and especially President Biden have been fervently attacking the court itself with allegations that the court is radical with respect to its rulings and ideologies. The liberal media tells us that the Supreme Court is a rogue body that has become too powerful and is re-writing the constitution and destroying our rights.

If I’ve heard it once I’ve heard it a thousand times that women’s rights are being destroyed by nine old white-haired men in robes. Recently, during a fundraiser in Los Angeles, Joe Biden stated “There has never been a court that’s so far out of step”. But is that statement truthful? If looking through the modern day typical Democratic lense, one could argue that the court has never been as diverse as it is today and therefore by today’s liberal diversity standards, the court has never been more representative of the people of this country. What do I mean? The Supreme Court is a constitutional mandated court consisting of nine unelected justices serving as the third co-equal branch of our government. Today the Supreme Court is composed of five men and four women. Of the four women, one is black. Of the five men, one is black. Never in the history of the Supreme Court has the court itself been so diverse. With race, gender, and intersectionality being the primary liberal qualifiers for “diverse” and thereby supposedly better organizations, it seems clear that liberals should embrace the court and its “representative” mix of justices. President Biden, by his own diversity standards, should declare that the court has never been more "in step" than it is today.

This blog post is not meant in anyway to be a history of the Supreme Court or to present the multitude of thoughts and positions surrounding our highest court. But more from a higher view to point out that today’s Supreme Court has never been so diversified in its composition. And before we start running off at the mouth stating that nine old white haired men in robes are destroying the country, we ought at least to acknowledge that it is four women and five men, of which there are two black people of which one is a male and one is a female. And by the way they are not all white haired either. Referring to the composition of the court as simply nine old white-haired men in robes is simply a lie that doesn’t help debate at all.