I have a proposal for how to balance the federal budget: The Aligned Money and Mouth Bill.
The “Aligned Money and Mouth Bill” has two parts:
1. Have the CBO compile regularly (each year? each quarter?) a report that shows, at the congressional district level the net federal funds coming into or out of each district.
2. Impose legislation that specifies that if the representative of a district has voted against federal tax increases or in favor of federal spending in that district, then federal expenditures in that district are capped at whatever the district’s net contribution is.
3. Districts whose representatives vote in favor of the tax increases or against the federal spending in their district are exempted from this restriction.
Several sources (Here is an example) have noted that the “red” states, clamoring most loudly for destroying the federal government as we know it, also happen to be net recipients of federal spending. That’s right. The same states that squawk the loudest about the “out of control” deficit also receive more than they contribute. The “blue” states typically pay more in federal taxes than they receive in goods and services.
Perhaps if the voters who put these incompetent, ignorant clowns in office have to take their own “medicine” first, they might send more rational people to Congress.
What I sometimes wish would happen is that if a representative voted AGAINST a spending program, then no money from that program would be allowed into the district.
Too many representatives eagerly vote to bring federal spending to their district, and then vote against the tax increases needed to pay for that spending. Too me, voting in favor of self-directed federal spending has the same conflict-of-interest flavor as a Judge ruling on a lawsuit to which he or she is a party.
Perhaps an alternative is to force representatives to recuse themselves from votes regarding spending in their district.
The progressive caucus would endorse this, and Nancy Pelosi would begin to whip her caucus for it. Huffington Post is in favor. Bernie Sanders delivers an impressive speech on the subject that gets ignored. Money would be raised for the sponsor(s) of the bill on liberal websites.
Then Republicans would call it attack on Christodemocracy and Harry Reid would get concerned. Unable to get the sixty votes he has decided he needs to scratch his own a– in the Senate, he would establish a “Gang” of 3 Senators of each party. They will meet in secret and discuss it between conversations on the best country clubs in greater DC and what year has the best Chateau Lafitte. Obama would tell CNN that he favors the idea, but isn’t sure this is the time. Glenn Beck would find something in the Enabling Act that he declares is pretty much the same thing.
The “Gang” would release a report, leaked to Fox News, calling for a CBO report that would total up each district’s receipts in federal aid. McConnell would then call the report a non-starter, and Republican “Gang” members would disavow their own report. In the House Boehner would table a bill slashing federal aid in all Democratically represented districts to the lowest receipt total of a Republican district, and say it was based on the bipartisan “Gang of Six” study.
The Pundits would call this solution bipartisan, progressives would rage. The Wall Street Journal will endorse this bold approach to government. After weeks of negotiations, Obama would endorse a compromise slashing all Democrat districts’ federal aid to an amount equal to the median Republican district, while reminding progressives that he has to govern on behalf of all Americans. David Brooks would wet his pants in excitement during a cocktail party conversation with Patrick McHenry’s chief of staff.
The compromise would be declared a non-starter by Eric Cantor on Fox News, and Boehner would cry. They will only endorse it if a law is passed ensuring that all federal expenditures in Democratically elected districts go to harassing abortion clinics, prank calling gay couples, and forcing residents to purchase semiautomatic weapons. The Washington Post calls it a fair offer. The Economist urgers readers to sell T-Bills and invest in Eritrean biotechnology.
Within six weeks, the original idea would forgotten, and Vice President Biden would be chairing negotiations on how many weapons Democrats should be forced to own. Scott Brown will wait and see what develops.
A few months ago, I might have called this comment “too cynical”.
Live and learn. đŸ™‚