Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Separate But Unequal

Showing a previously unknown talent for stand-up comedy, Barack Hussein Obama has declared that there is no need for a balanced budget amendment, because "we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs...and to make sure that the government is living within its means and making responsible choices. "


No, seriously, that's what he said...even though the government hasn't done anything remotely like balancing the budget for eons, and the president himself is claiming that unless an economic miracle occurs in Washington, the skies will soon fill with locusts, rivers will run red with blood, and the four horsemen of the Apocalypse will start making phonecalls to us during dinner and our favorite television shows to try to force us to pay our overdue national bills.

But still, Mr. Obama doesn't think we need any actual laws to force politicians to do what they haven't done. Even though the stupid citizenry needs laws to force us to buy health insurance, and the right kind of light bulbs, and low-flow "flush 'em twice" toilets, and on and on and on...

Mr. Obama has promised to veto any balanced budget legislation which comes his way. But...if he truly believes that the Washington insiders will balance the budget out of their innate sense of responsibility and national duty, then why would it matter if there was also a balanced budget amendment? Obviously, it wouldn't.

No, Barack Obama is against a balanced budget amendment for the simple reason that he's against a balanced budget. Because insane overspending is the easiest way for him to pave the way for the "emergency" redistribution of wealth.

Which is exactly the "Change" he wanted for this country all along.



Jazz said...


Isn't this the same guy who said at a campaign stop in September 2008 words to the effect that "America is the greatest country in the world (cheers) ... and with your help, we can change that."

Now, I know he wasn't speaking to any of us here. Still, he managed to find enough "help" to screw things up royally.

That's my opinion -- and y'all are welcome to it!

Anonymous said...

Honestly, everything Obama says and does is more and more farcical, yet the cretins in the mainstream media still act as though he is the Second Coming of Christ. Great cartoon, BTW.

Angry Hoosier Dad said...

I don't know if the cretins in the media (I call them fluffers) actually believe that Obama is the second coming of whatever they believe in, but I am convinced they want us to. He is a glossy, painted but weak facade and they are the 2X4's propping him up from behind. Heaven help him if we ever get a glimpse of that ugly vacuousness beneath the veneer.

Earl said...

Ever get a bag of chips from the vending machine that managed to get by quality control and contains nothing but air? That's what I think of whenever this guy opens his mouth. Thank you Hoosier Dad for adding the visual of media 2X4's propping up this bag of wind.

John the Econ said...

I think that we're already living in the "post budget" age, where in Washington the mindset is that an actual budget really doesn't even matter anymore. Budgets are basically a document stating priorities, and we all know the Democrats are usually hesitant to advertise what their priorities actually are. It's no surprise they've presented no budget in over 2 years, as doing so would be embarrassing, especially with the Tea Party showing up at every town hall to point out the obvious insanity of it all.

To be fair, this didn't start with Obama. I think this mindset took hold during the Bush years post-911, when the country's attention was split between the post-dot-com crash and, 911 and subsequent wars. Balancing the books just seemed like a lesser priority that everyone pretended that they'd get to later when things settled down. An out-of-control GOP Congress and a always-ready-to-spend Democrat party was more than happy to play along. After retaking Congress in '06, and the White House in '08, the Democrats were prepared to take it to the next level. Over the last decade, the fed has been more than willing and able to make this all possible by happily printing money. (This simply couldn't happen otherwise)

Any why bother with budgets? The way the Federal government "accounts" for itself bears little resemblance to anything that is taught in traditional accounting. (Trillions in liabilities do not show up on any single balance sheet) The budget has become so huge, convoluted, and almost irrelevant to what actually happens that I think Washington is beginning to conceed that they have little control over what actually happens anymore. Spending is out of control, and revenues are completely unpredictable. Historically, Progressives have paid little more than lip-service to fiscal responsibility, only pretending to care about it when it was useful as a talking point against conservatives. Budgets have become little more than tools used to bludgeon each other, so why do it if you don't have to?

The reality is that the Federal government is mostly just a resource reallocation mechanism. Wouldn't it just be easier to just spend (and reward) where you want to spend and tax who you wish to punish and take away from without having to actually think about complex and boring things like bookkeeping?

It sure seems that way.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Spot on, John.
I, for one, would welcome a hard bump on the ceiling - it might shake up just how much $$ is spent on stupid crap, and maybe we could just effing STOP it. Or SOME of it, anyway..

John the Econ said...

I doubt it Pete. They'd just find a way around it like they always have.

For example, you put a clause in there about "except in times of war", I'll guarantee you that we'll have perma-wars from now on.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Jazz- Giving credit (or blame) where it's due, Obama really has delivered "Change." He's had a huge impact on "Hope," too.

@Anonymous & Angry Hoosier Dad- I continue to be left dumbstruck by the media adulation of this incompetent socialist. And I believe that 90% of it boils down to the fact that liberals (even in the media) measure their worth by how much they can be shown to love someone (anyone) black. They wear their special form of racism like a sparkling tiara.

@Earl- I love the "bag of air" analogy. I can practically see Obama's poop-eating grin on a puffy mylar bag right now...

@John the Econ- Excellent summation, as usual! "Why bother with a budget?" seems like it should be a ridiculous question...but it isn't anymore. Clearly, the Dems don't bother with budgets anymore (while making sure we "live within our means and make responsible choices"). It makes me think of two articles I saw recently suggesting how to beat the debt-ceiling problem, now and in the future. One suggested we raise our debt-ceiling to $120 trillion, and the other suggested we just drop it entirely so no one will know how much trouble we're in. One article was from one of the world's largest financial institutions, and the other was a satire from "The Onion." But which is which?

Sadly, the suggestion to eliminate any debt-ceiling whatsoever was the "serious" one.

@Pete(Detroit)- I've also been thinking I'd like that "hard bump on the ceiling," but the politicians wouldn't learn a thing...and in their slimy way would no doubt find a way to turn it to their advantage while the rest of us took the hit.

Andrew said...

One happy thought is that Aug 2 comes with no deal, and Obama 'shuts the government down' except for 'essential services'...and we get a taste of what 'government we can actually afford' feels like. And that we like it.

But alas I expect the 'Gang Of Six' (how Mao-ist a meme) will prevail--giving Obama everything he wants and more including tax hikes in exchange for empty hot air promise of future cuts that will never happen.

Pete(Detroit) said...

Another thing that never ceases to amaze me - people who scream 'no touching SS / Medicare!'
Uh, guys? if we don't "fix" them they will hit 150% of GDP in like 20 years - talk about unsustainable!
So, we start dialing back now, or the whole system collapses later. Go figure.

Earl said...

Last night on Fox, Krauthammer recommended that the House Republicans take the Gang of Six proposal and remake it into something more to their liking. His concern is how they are marginalizing themselves with the BBA that will never pass. He makes a good point. Particularly after seeing Karen Tumulty (Washington Post) with a big grin on her face about the prospect of Government working (pardon me while I vomit). Anyway, I'm kind of floundering on what I want to happen politically. I know the WSJ is historically on record as opposing BBA because they fear the unintended consequences, such as never being able to lower taxes, military cuts, etc. At the same time I have to admit wanting to oppose something just because Obama seems to like it. A natural human reaction.

Andrew said...

Pete, don't fall for the Obama meme of deliberately confusing/conflating SS & Medicare. SS is an outright obligation--workers were taxed involuntarily from 7 to 15% of their entire incomes their entire working lives for SS. They have a right to it.
Medicare is a huge cost problem for different reasons...including MASSIVE fraud, and the insane extension of free Medicare/Medicaid to illegal aliens and their extended clans, er, 'families'. Cut off the illegal aliens (take your pick, 12 to 25 million currently?) and suddenly our 'social safety net' looks much more sound.
It's not the legitimate payee's the illegal freeloaders who are the real problem. Naturally you won't hear that from Obama, or the MSM, or the dirt-cheap-Walmart-labor factions of the GOP.

Andrew said...

For an excellent breakdown of the high cost of illegals to our social services systems, as well as free faxes to congress to take action on the pending legislation that can solve the problem, go to
Their site is an amazing example of how effective a grassroots online platform can really be, and they deserve all our support.

TheOldMan said...

Be careful about any "Balanced Budget Amendment" proposals. There are two ways to balance a budget - cut spending to match income or raise income to match spending. Guess which one the feds will use under the excuse that they are being forced to do so by a BBA.

Colby said...

If our Spendocrats ever bumped the ceiling, they would simply go, "Ouch! What was THAT?! Let's remove it!" Then that silly little obstacle to becoming Greece would be a problem no more.

BO says he would veto a balanced budget amendment? Maybe I dreamt this, but I would swear (from my political science classes in college) that the president has nothing to do with constitutional amendments. I think they go straight from congress to the states. If 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states say it's a go, the pres. can't do a damn thing about it. Maybe I'm wrong, but hell, I can dream can't I? Somebody set the record straight, please.

Andrew said...

@Colby: True, the POTUS has zero input over a constitutional amendment. As you say, it goes direct from Congress to the 50 (or 57) states.

The POTUS also can't opt to wage undeclared war past 90 days without a formal congressional authorization up-or-down vote. POTUS has to be a natural born citizen. POTUS cannot bypass elected officials with unelected crony czars. POTUS cannot rule by executive decree, etc, etc. But those limits are only as real as the Congress' willingness to enforce those limits.
Once the Senate stopped saying 'no' , they got an Emperor, all checks and balances were gone, and never returned. We're watching a reenactment now.

Suzy said...

I don't know about liberals loving people who are black...nobody likes Herman Cain so far... BUT they sure do love to defend black liberals by screaming about it.

I find it hard to even comment is just so sad and crazy these days.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Pete(Detroit)- The numbers don't lie. "Medicare as we know it" is going to die soon and in an ugly manner if the Democrats have their way. Changing Medicare - drastically - is the only way to save it in some form.

@The Old Man- I worry about that too, though at least the proposed amendment would put a cap on what percentage of GNP could go into the budget. Still, that wouldn't keep the Dems from saying that amount needs to be paid 100% by the evil Rich.

@Colby & Andrew- I think it was my error saying that Barry Soetoro would veto an amendment to the constitution. He said he wouldn't support it, and another article said he'd veto any spending cuts sent to him, and both factoids went into the Waring blender of my mind. Oops.

@Suzy- I didn't actually say that liberals love black people; I said that they loved making people THINK they love black people. Hey, they hate Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, and others. And in general they seem to hate blacks because they continue to force them to go to schools where no education can take place, and insist on giving them welfare money rather than job training.

The dirty little secret is that Liberals believe blacks need to be "cared for," and that the most noble thing a white person can be is a "Good Massa."

Dave said...

Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security do need to be reformed to maintain solvency. I believe I have the beginnings of a road map on how to change these programs to not only protect the retired and the needy but also to maintain long-term viability of the program.

First only US citizens and legal immigrants should be eligible for these social programs, or any social programs for that matter. These programs are a benefit set up to benefit citizens, paid for by citizens, through taxes and payroll deductions.

Second Privatize Social Security retirement. Keep the same deductions from your paychecks for the "Social Security" tax but have it put into accounts that adjust for growth depending on how many years you have till retirement. That would give the average worker earning 50,000 a year 300K in the account BEFORE interest which would mean an annual income of $25,000 dollars (tax free) a year for 12 years of retirement....and because even keeping the 65 year retirement age not every one would live to 77 to withdraw the entire amount Social Security would be able to pay people that have lived past the current average age of 77. Now if we add in an average of 5% interest per year over the same 40 year period the average amount in an account at retirement of someone earning 50,000 a year would be 951,000 which would actually give 50,000 a year in retirement income for just slightly over 19 years or at the current age 65 retirement 50K a year till age 84!!!

Third Social Security/retirement accounts can't be dipped into at a whim by the federal government just because they found a couple hundred billion dollars just "Laying around".


First--Again only available to US Citizens and Legal immigrants.

Second--Provable medical necessity just like Medicare for Disabled people.

Third Asset caps--Why should someone with MILLIONS in the bank and investments and three BMW's and an SUV be eligible for government assistance?

Fourth Limits--Now this one is sticky.....but if you are getting Medicaid then it should only cover you for necessary treatments to get you back to being able to work. And should only cover you for a certain period of time....Why should we have to pay for peoples health care when the only thing wrong with them is that they are too lazy to work....If you have a severe medical problem that prevents you from working then that's what Medicare is for along with disability.

And to lower the cost of health care in general we need to tort law reforms....someone should not be able to sue for Millions of dollars because the had an elected procedure and had a warned side effect from that procedure!

THis is only a start to a plan but it would put our Social Security specifically and the SS/Medicare/Medicaid programs in general in a much better financial position!

And since I am on Disability and draw Social Security I can assure anyone out there that at least I am not living "high on the hog". Hell I can't afford to live if it wasn't for the charity of my family!

Pete(Detroit) said...

Andrew, SS is a scam, pure and simple a pyramid style Ponzi scheme, where the income from workers today pay for the benefit of retirees today. Problem is, the pyramid is tapering down. Dave's fix, an enforced 401k style program is a good idea, especially if you use the employer half of the payment to help cover current obligations. But, since currently everyone uses up 100% of their contribution in about 7 years, and most people live at least 10 years past drawing, the system is fatally broken. The ONLY things to do are
a) means testing - why should "the rich" draw ANY SS? (answer, because they paid into it! Sorry, you got scammed, the $$ is GONE. Yes it sux that the scammer was Uncle Sam, not Bernie Madoff, but that's how it goes when you deal w/ Scammers in the gummint)
b) raise the age - maybe at the rate of 6 mo / year so that people will still get to it, eventually, but get it up to where you have to be closer to life expectancy before you start to draw (expectancy was like 69, when it was started, NO one was EVER going to hit the 30 year limit - happens frequently anymore...)
c) Kill off older people quicker - see also ObummerCare

SC said...

49 out of the 50 (57) states have a legal reqmt for a balanced budget. The details vary from state to state & and they do not impose legal penalties for failure to balance the budget. Look at them! They are almost all running huge deficits in the millions & some in the billions. It is a noble goal to have a balanced budget defined as a % of GDP, but I think that the Fed will end up just like the states.

Sad to say, but it is time to take some serious action. I know entitlements are the big-ticket items Lets’ start out like a household would small, cut out the little things first. Rent a dvd instead of going to a movie (or not at all), don’t go out for lunch as much, brown bag it; eat dinner at home more; etc.

Now the Govt. Just like the private sector (that pays their salaries) cut out redundant jobs. Cut pay. Cut benefits. Most of us survived it. Up the retirement age. Cut the length of time someone can be on unemployment, no more welfare for more than 1 year 2 max. Same with food stamps, etc. There has to be an “End” date to these things or people will just abuse them forever. No free anything if you are illegal (except a bus or boat ticket home).

I am all for major changes to Medicare & Medicaid. Here’s one of the things I just don’t get. Everyone, even the dems agree entitlements are biggies. Why isn’t anybody bringing up ObamaCare? We all know that it’s just another HUGE entitlement & if the existing ones are bankrupting the country, why in the world should there be another one? Why isn’t anyone looking at that? And don’t forget the real boogiemen: Waste, Fraud & Abuse – why aren’t we seeing anyone going after these 3 losers?

“Means Testing” means that if you worked your ass off all your life, lived in a modest home, drove a used car, took a local vacation every 2 years or so and saved your money for retirement you get SCREWED! You might as well have eff’d off all your life (like so many others), bought a new car every year, lived in an extravagant home you couldn’t afford, went to Vegas monthly, in debt up to your eye-balls. And your reward: you get MY hard-earned money from Social Security. The system SUX no matter how you slice or dice it.

Chuck said...

@Suzy - you said "I find it hard to even comment is just so sad and crazy these days."

That is where I find myself. Just when I think we've hit the bottom of the “stupid” scale, they dig to a new, lower, level!

It's just so simple. STOP! If you can't afford it, you can't have it! Goes for all ... from the individual to the world. Governments are a necessary evil. They are evil only because of the ease of their being corrupted. But we need them to provide for the common defense and to enforce the laws that protect us. Problem is that the lawmakers have concluded that their job is to make laws ... needed or not. NOT!

Our founding fathers had it right. One of the first big mistakes was in changing the way senators were “elected”. Now they want to eliminate the Electoral College! News flash: current pundits are NOT smarter than the founding fathers. They understood all about the yoke of tyranny. They knew all too well that power corrupts … and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But greedy men over the course of the last 230+ years have managed to undo some of the basic building blocks of our foundation, and we are now nearing the end of the slippery slope. Yes, the end, not the beginning.

Will the last on out please turn off the lights? Thank you.

Ignore me. I'm just in a "down" mood. Gotta watch/read/listen to less news!

John the Econ said...

Why should someone with MILLIONS in the bank and investments and three BMW's and an SUV be eligible for government assistance?

Perhaps because they paid into a supposed "retirement" system? What you suggest takes Social Security from already having a negative rate of return to having a really negative rate of return!

But I'm afraid you are right. I've always predicted that it was only a matter of time until SS was converted into just another means-tested welfare program.

Dave said...

@John--I was referring to people being eligible for Medicaid....Not Social Security. Social Security is a deduction out of your paycheck and I agree that money is your's no matter how much you have....but Medicaid....Medical supposed to be a means tested welfare program, but it is based on income not assets. If you have millions in investments etc. in many states you are still eligible for Medicaid IF your income falls below the threshold amount. So technically you can be a billionaire as long as you are not earning dividends or interest in excess of this amount and qualify for Medical Assistance. There was a report of this a few months back about someone that had millions in investments but because of the lowered rate of return he was eligible for not only Medicaid but food stamps as well. This is plain and abuse. As was the lottery winner that took his payout in one lump sum.....bought 10's of millions of dollars of property but had no "income" so he was also getting Medicaid, food stamps, and cash assistance.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Dave- That's a pretty good plan for getting things back on the right track. Let me know the address where I can send you a campaign donation!

@Pete(Detroit)- You've done a skillful job of hitting my hot buttons. "Means testing?" Putting aside the REAL millionaires and billionaires, I think about people like myself: being self-employed I've always had an uncertain income, and so I bank every cent I can to protect against an uncertain future. I don't have a pool, I drive a 19 year old car, and I basically don't spend money...which is why I do have a savings account. SOoooo, after paying DOUBLE into Social Security for my whole adult life (true of all self-employed folks), I shouldn't get benefits because I banked my money instead of blowing it?! Sorry, I've got real problems with that. And yes, means testing may become necessary - but it should happen AFTER people who have used up "more than their share" have been cut off completely.

@SC- Great post and a great question: "Why isn't anyone bringing up Obamacare?" Part of the reason is that Obama, the Dems, and the Media have all proclaimed that Obamacare will save money, and is therefore not a problem but a solution! This is, of course, insanity. The CBO and many others have charted the fact that Obamacare will send costs skyrocketing while at the same time reducing the quality of, and access to, healthcare. But who's going to admit it?

@Chuck- I know that "down" mood you're referring to. If only there was a way we could all meet for a Hope n' Change Happy Hour at a convenient location...

@John the Econ- I already mentioned my personal perspective on means testing, and was quite pleased with myself for using none of the four-letter words that are going through my mind. I seriously don't personally know ANY adult who spends less than me, saves more than me, or pays as much for insurance as I do. But in response to this, Obama wants to raise my taxes, cut the benefits I've paid for, and even FINE me for having "too good" an insurance policy (which I had to buy to find someone who would cover epilepsy for some of my family members). If the system is set up to only futtbuck those who play by the rules, there's something seriously wrong.

@Dave- For the reasons I've cited above, I'd suggest that anyone who has paid their full measure into Social Security should be able to receive full benefits. Need to find a place to cut? Fine - let's start with those who've never paid in a freakin' dime.

Of course, the government could change all of this by more honestly calling it a "Freedom Tax" instead of "Social Security." As in, "Just give us your damn money to do whatever we want with, or we'll take away your freedom and throw you in jail." Essentially, this change would only be semantic.

Dave said...

@Stilt--right you are about Social've paid for it and it should be yours...and under the plan I laid out it would be yours, but if you had a LARGE asset base you wouldn't be eligible for Medicaid, foodstamps, or cash assistance through the welfare office. But currently you can literally have millions or billions in assets and qualify for these entitlement programs if your income is low enough. You would also be eligible for Medicare at retirement....because again you paid for Medicare your whole life with your payroll deductions.

John the Econ said...

The Progressive agenda is all about increasing the "moral hazard" within the system to ensnare us all.

@Dave: You're right; it's absurd that you can be an actual "millionaire" (net worth of a million dollars) and still qualify for all kinds of welfare. (How about that lottery winner who's on food stamps?)

Of course, that is because of our politicians (and subsequently tax code's) obsession with "income" over actual "wealth". (I've long suspected that this is because so many of our politicians and their benefactors derive their power and standard of living from already established "wealth" instead of "income". This kind of bias in the tax code also serves to make it more difficult for people to join the ranks of the truly "wealthy" since "income" that is accumulated slowly is so heavily penalized as to make becoming "wealthy" rather difficult. (I think this serves the already "wealthy" desire to contain their ranks)

Medicaid has been creeping to absorb the middle class for decades. (In some states, you can actually make the national median income and still qualify) Before ObamaCare accelerated the process, I had always assumed that the ultimate plan was to just gradually expand eligibility for Medicaid until everybody was eligible, and it would just be merged with Medicare and we'd be done.

@Stilton: You know we have the same four-letter-word feelings about the state of the tax code and how people who resist assimilation into the collective of institutional dependency are made to pay for their insolence.

It's so sad how the notion of true "freedom" has become so quaint.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Dave- Regarding means testing, I guess it comes down to what the government would consider a "LARGE asset base." The people currently in charge refer to an individual with a $200,000 income as a "billionaire" why not call someone with $200,000 in savings a billionaire? $50,000 in savings should still make you, at least, an evil money-hoarding millionaire. No soup for you!

And while emotionally I do feel like "if you paid in, you should get what you paid for," I know that can't actually happen...because every cent I've paid in for the past four decades has been stolen (along with everyone else's money). So I know I'm going to have cuts (probably deep cuts) to any benefits I receive, and I'm willing to accept that. But I don't think the people who obeyed the rules, were self-sufficient, and funded the system for everyone else should be the first on the firing line.

@John the Econ- "increasing the moral hazard within the system to ensnare us all." You've summed up the whole of the Obama strategy in one painfully eloquent sentence. Well done.

Anonymous said...

@John the Econ

"Net Worth" is not the way to Means Test. - A person may have inherited a house worth a million dollars but be unable to work (for legitimate reasons). Should they then have to sell the house and use the money to buy a cheaper place and then eat through the rest of the proceeds with living/medical expenses? No way. Hell, my own house, which I *paid* for, is valued at around $750K and there's no way I want some jackass bureaucrat telling me that I'm less entitled to a pension than the single-mom-to-five-kids-by-four-fathers-and-never-held-a-job who lives down the street.

WMD said...

Stilt, count me in for that Happy Hour!

JustaJeepGuy said...

@Anonymous (immediately above),
The question the Demo_rats want answered is, CAN THEY BUY YOUR VOTE? If they can, they won't "means test" you. They expect to have long since bought the vote of the "s-m-t-f-k-b-f-f-a-n-h-a-j" down the street.
Demo_rats' purchase of the welfare vote was the sole intent of LBJ when he expanded welfare and SS eligibility in the '60s. But of course, it was for the chiiiiiildrennnnn!

Jerry (NC) said...

I find it interesting that Obama has promised to Veto any balanced budget legislation that comes his way. If passed as a bill through the Congress, he may do this, however, if passed through Congress as a proposed Constitutional Amendment (which I don't think it would reach the required two thirds of both Houses), he, as President, would have no part of the process - see Article V of the Constitution.

But I suspect readers here know the Constitution better than the President and most of the Congress.

Pete(Detroit) said...

SSec - pay in, pay out, 'means testing'... I suppose it depends if you consider it a mandatory participation safety net, for taking care of the needy elderly (and yes, incidentally rewarding the 'bad' behavior of dissipative living) or and enforced retirement account, in which you are 'due' back your payments, with interest.
Like most of us, I'd sure prefer the latter. I don't see it happening.

Medi-whatsit - in y2k, before the bubble burst, a retired gentleman of my acquaintance was paying his taxes quarterly, and as it turned out some investments did better than expected. MUCH better. Having underestimated his income, he had naturally underestimated his taxes, and wound up owing more. A LOT more. More than my entire wages (not a LOT, but decent money) for the year. Note - that's not the 'extra' income, that's the underestimated taxes. He mis-guessed by more than my salary.
1) he's paying a cubi-metric buttload in taxes if he MISSED by that much
2) Why the EFFFF are 'we' paying dime one for his prescriptions?

The Obvious Answer is clearly to eat the welfare moms, the babies, and the elderly poor. ("A Modest Proposal" J.Swift", "Soylent Green" Harry Harrison)

A very reasonable (to me) step is to sterilize welfare recipients. If / when you can afford to have it reversed, you can think about more kids.

Fundamentally, the basic numbers don't lie - we're taking in like $2T / year, and spending $3.5T
That has GOT to STOP.
And it will, sooner or later - would you like the bumpy landing, or would you prefer to fly it straight into the ground?