If President, My Budget Ideas

I don't attempt to classify anyone who reads this, but have you noticed that many of the people who are upset, pissed off really, about the Patriot Act, and are quick to invoke the most literal reading of the 4th Amendment to oppose it (ala Franken), are the same people that want to take a very liberal approach to Article 1 of that same Constitution?

Suddenly "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States..." reads as allowing government to provide a public healthcare option. The original "general welfare" most likely referred to "health, happiness, and good fortune" or well-being. Oh wow, the same inalienable rights the Declaration of the Independence says all humans are endowed with. Funny that the writer's of both would include something in the Constitution stating that the government will work to ensure no one's inalienable rights are impeded.

And it's also funny how "...to pay the debts...of the United States" is often forgotten by those in favor of bigger government. Where are we getting the money for these new programs being proposed, let alone the old programs that are already running? Oh sure, we could raise taxes on the rich. They've got loads of money. No matter what your opinion is of trickle-down economics, taxing the rich at best provides a short-spanned IV to the degenerating economy. Even if you don't think any rich person's money will come down the line to me or you, if you've taken a high school economics class you should know that the only way to make money is with money (it's called capital... hence "capitalism). So if the rich suddenly have less money to do business with (due to taxes), then they are going to make far less money.

"Well, we could just inflate the dollar. It worked for Japan in the 80s." Yeah until they hit a worse recession in the 90s. Inflating the dollar also only works for domestic debt, and does nothing to help us with the debt we have accumulating in China right now. Our best option is to start the budget from scratch. Piss off a lot of old people, pro-military people, environmentalists, students, and unions and find out what we need, what's bleeding us dry, and what can be cut.

We need defenses, but the costs can be scaled back with more realistic estimates and better contract bids.
We need to conserve our resources on this planet, but we also need to realize that humans aren't going to give up what they already have; therefore, let's give government subsidies to companies that have shown they can produce a worthwhile energy, and no more of this let's pay you for your idea bullcrap. I'm sick of seeing that we're paying some guy who says he can make fuel out of pig feces, when we know we can produce energy from nuclear reactions.
Education is important, but let's face it, not everyone deserves to be in college. We've all seen the kid that's failed the same class four times and is still pursuing the same major. It's a surreal feeling to find out you're not cut out for something, but it's also not helping our country to provide government grants to every single person who graduates from high school.
The unions were formed with good intentions, like just about everything in this world. But when did a gathering of people hoping to improve work standards suddenly turn into its own entity? The unions no longer work for the workers, they work for themselves. Everything is just a front so that they can line their own pockets off government subsidies, and therefore they need to be greatly scaled back or cut off completely.
And finally, we come to the old people. This is a difficult one, as we all know someone older who most likely uses Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. But these three programs account for a vast plurality of the budget, and as the baby boomer generation enters retirement, these programs are projected to either skyrocket are debt to even greater levels or bust completely in a way far worse than the housing bubble of 2008. Therefore it is necessary to completely dissolve all three programs, freeing up massive amount of budget space, and in turn allow some of the larger corporations (like Walmart) to enter the pharmaceutical market in an attempt to drive drug costs down. If these three programs ceased to exist, it would be more money in the pockets of all employees, and more capital on the books for the businesses.

So, sorry about the tirade for something that started out criticizing Al Franken for being a constitutional hypocrite (see above). Sometimes I just gotta let these things out.

Saving the Earth

Above is the aptly named “Hockey Stick” graph. It came out in the mid-90s in favor of the "Humans are hurting the planet" theories. As you can see in the graph, the planet was cooling from about the year 1000 AD (none of that BCE/CE crap here) to 1907 AD, which is convenient for environmentally friendly organizations touting the evils of automobiles and mankind in general.

These groups often say that humans are responsible for all of the warming effects we have seen in the last century. But I say, why stop assigning blame there? As far as I can tell, humans are responsible for everything that has happened to this planet, since, I don’t know, the birth of humanity. Ever since man decided to stop picking his nose and start picking up rocks, we have had an impact on this planet for better or worse.

But instead of blaming Homo sapiens for every conceivable problem (although there are still some groups that do) most will just find one thing they don’t like and say that humans are the reason it sucks. Not enough wolverines in northern California? Humans killed ‘em. Too much smog in Beijing? Humans did that. Mexico City is sinking into a lake bed? Bad human engineering. But why don’t lobbyists ever combine all these different things that humans caused, and blame humans for everything? Because they too are human, and realize that they would get caught in the blame. The lamenters drive in gasoline-powered vehicles, too.

So instead they come up with all of these short-sighted plans that to reduce carbon emissions or minimize plastic bag waste. I prefer to think on the long term, and have drawn up a the beginnings of a plan to help save the Earth.

THE PLAN - Euthanize the elderly
This plan makes sense in a couple of ways, besides the fact that some of the more senile recipients would think they were going in for treatments to become younger. Of course I understand there may be some critics out there who scream, “That’s so inhumane! How can you say we should kill the elderly?!” But I have a few responses to them:

First, old people tend to drive slower, resulting in longer drive times for themselves. However, everyone stuck behind said old person who is unable to pass will also have a longer drive time. A longer commute and more stop-and-go traffic results in increased fuel consumption, which results in more demand for oil, which drives up the price of oil, which means more wells get drilled, which hurts the environment.

Second, old people typically require specialized diets. While most normal (young) people are able to eat whatever and whenever they want, old people have to have their food mashed, liquefied, or in pill form, and they have to have someone prepare it, feed it, or shove it up their rectum for them. This means that whenever an old person wants to eat, increased man hours must be spent and additional energy consumption must go into the process, which requires more food to replace the used energy, which means more forests need to be cleared to allow for the growth of foodstuffs, which eliminates the earth’s natural ability to absorb carbon dioxide, which hurts the environment.

Third, old people are known to complain... a lot. Not only does this result in increased stress levels in those they complain to, but it most likely slows down the cogs of administration as old people clog the channels with their complaining. When more old people complain, less work actually gets done, which means people have to stay at the office longer, resulting in generators running longer, requiring more energy and adding more light pollution to the landscape.

Now as I said before, this is just a proposal. I have no idea what the minimum age should be for such a program; that is something best left to the number crunchers to decide. I doubt that such a program could become a universal overnight, as some cultures have a certain respect for the elderly (not America). Lastly, we operate within a land governed by laws, so by no means should this program commence without some sort of authortative sanction.