Democrats working with Republicans suggests some computerized confection of one of the funniest (to me) Seinfeld episodes with Dancing with the Stars. Either because Elaine does not know the steps, or because she refuses to follow the script is exactly what the Republicans have been doing, ever since the Obama inaugural.

::::::::

The 14% solution, and all that jazz

A dear friend in Florida once tried to console me of my despairing over the dismal future of our constitutional democratic republic with, "The strength of America is that we let everyone vote, which is also its weakness." It was an updated version of Jefferson's "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or, have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?"

***

It does take two to tango.

Democrats working with Republicans suggests some computerized confection of one of the funniest (to me) Seinfeld episodes with Dancing with the Stars. To make this analogy work you've got to have seen at least one episode of DWTS, to understand the format, and then you must take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku-VSuWJjDQ. It's Elaine Benes' "dance."

Elaine Benes in this analogy is one of the stars, and her partner will be named Bobby. Tom Bergeron, the host of the show announces, "And now we turn to Elaine and Bobby, who will be dancing the tango." Either because Elaine does not know the steps, or because she refuses to follow the script is exactly what the Republicans have been doing, ever since the Obama inaugural.

But the problem isn't limited to Republicans in the US House and Senate. Much of the fix we're in -- and we're in one hellova fix -- can be traced directly to our neighbors, to our relatives, and to those with whom we also associate. Because, as my friend in Florida said, they also vote. If enough of them vote Republican, the Republican scheme is what we're going to get. Which is terrifying to me, because I vividly recall a terse segment of a passing conversation I tried to have about a month ago with one of my neighbors. It came to a screeching halt when she quite sincerely told me she thought "Sara Palin was neat." (Her words verbatim.) I say, came to a screeching halt because, when I tried to expand the conversation, she immediately flipped to something less demanding; much, much less demanding.

To only myself, I thereupon flipped her off with the commitment to nevermore have anything to do with her. I mean, like, how do you have an informed, intelligent discussion when the other party is either absent, or refuses? But that's the social-political dilemma we're stuck with.

President Obama just last week released his $3.8 trillion federal budget proposal for 2101-2011. Granted, that's a lot of money. And granted as well, the difference between federal government revenues and the proposed outgo is a $1.6 trillion deficit that's also a lot of money, more in fact than at any prior time in the country's history. Furthermore, regardless that Vice President Cheney exclaimed "Reagan proved, deficits don't matter," and how the GOP controlled legislature voted, they do matter. Continued unchanged they will culminate in a bankrupt country. That's the ultimate definition of "unsustainable."

It has been impossible to not hear the howls: "Government spending is out of control!" And, pick one or both of the following: "Obama / The Democratic policy is to spend, spend, spend!" And always is/are attached: "The government needs to learn to spend within its means." And/or, "We need to [dramatically] cut government spending!"

Okay, okay . . . I've had it. Enough has become way, way too much from folks who know way, way too little about what they're saying and what they're talking about. By "what they're saying" I mean the implications inherent in what they're saying.

Let's begin with basic civics; a subject that it's manifestly evident few have adequate knowledge of. A first question: What two components does the federal budget consist of?

The answer to the above is "discretionary" and "non-discretionary" spending. Discretionary spending is that component that can be tampered with. Non-discretionary, also called "mandatory," is that which by either contract or law is beyond any president's and/or legislative body's ability to do anything about. Most presidents and legislators also include within the non-discretionary component defense spending, which gets lopped in with the non-discretionary as "non-discretionary and defense." While I'm prone to quibble over the proposition that military spending should also be on the discretionary side of the ledger, I'm also adamant that defense spending is an essential expenditure to any nation hoping to retain international integrity, and that, as we are who we are, the sum of its parts is extraordinary.

Question 2: Regardless that a large portion, by actual and social contract, truly is non-discretionary, for just a moment, not including 100% of the defense spending, can you provide just three examples of components of the non-discretionary expenditures?

Interest on the national debt is one. Social Security benefits to those currently receiving Social Security is another. So is Medicare, to those on Medicare. Medicaid payments to the states is yet one more. The latter three are referred to as "entitlements."

Because the very second there was some indication that the US might default on a debt-service payment the entire world's economy would collapse, and with it any pretense to civilization. Genuine chaos would reign. We are not going to default. And by contract and by law, however there exists no legal obligation to increase the amount of Social Security payments to those currently receiving them, there does exist a contractual relationship between the recipients and the federal government that cannot be dismissed. Same thing for Medicare. And pretty much the same thing goes for the federal government's Medicaid payments to the states. Additionally, I said earlier that part of the defense budget is by actual and social contract non-discretionary. By that I'm referring to the benefits, medical and otherwise, that are owed to veterans.

While there are additional components on the non-discretionary side, let's lump them into the non-discretionary component of this discussion so that I can ask Question 3: What is the percentage of the federal budget that is non-discretionary?

The correct answer is, a little more than 85%; actually closer to 86%.

By the process of 2d grade arithmetic (Hint: this is a subtraction problem.), what is the percentage of the federal budget that is discretionary, the part that can be fiddled with, if one actually wants to fiddle much with it?

The correct answer to Question 3 is 14%; hence the "14% solution" title of this editorial essay. Reference to a visual aid pie chart can be found at
click here The actual budget itself is at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/. (Disclosure: However I downloaded a copy, I've yet to begin reading it. I'll let you know later how it ends.)

So your loudmouth brother-in-law is squawking like a parrot all the Republican talking points.

Before I issue my rejoinder, I want to comment on House Budget Committee Ranking Member, Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan's now-published solution. Much of it is viewable via a video. (Actually a rather high quality production! [Seriously, no sarcasm intended.]) http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/ . Also obtainable via the Ryan link are written outlines of his "Roadmap" solutions. To the health care/Medicare problem Ryan proposes vesting everyone between 55 and 65 with a fixed $5,000 annual voucher that supposedly would help that segment purchase health insurance from existing health insurance companies. To ameliorate the Social Security dilemma, Ryan's plan would allow an unlimited tax-deduction for those under 55 when they purchased a private retirement savings vehicle. Other of Ryan's proposals include doing away with capital gains taxes altogether and reducing the top income tax rate on all persons to 25%.

Here I need to superimpose the disclosure that, in my 15 years experience as a licensed and appointed independent health and life insurance representative in California, Florida and Nevada, I never found a premium rate chart for 55-year olds that $5,000 would do much for. Most annual premiums for individual policies with a $2,000 deductible and a $100 co-pay for "preferred" applicants -- those with absolutely no serious pre-existing conditions -- ran considerably (as in CONSIDERABLY!!) higher. The 55-year-old with zero pre-existing conditions is more rare than the California condor. And no insurance company -- for-profit or not-for-profit -- wants to buy a claim. You don't fit the height/weight chart, or have an irregular heartbeat, or have slightly elevated blood pressure, or have diabetes, or have some other history that augurs ill, and not only would no insurance company want to insure you, neither would you, if it was your money you were betting. As for Ryan's private investment scheme as a Social Security fix . . . Yeah, tell me once more, how many folks have a 401-k or IRA that today is as valuable as it was two years ago. And Ryan wants them and all others to do what?

Getting back now to a more honest discussion and reply to all who are screeching like wild chimpanzees, racing through the jungle underbrush, permit me to demand from them, not in general or vague terms, the precise "big government" programs and, within, say, $100,000, the sum to be excised as useless waste, fraud, and abuse. I'm not suggesting that in every government program there does not exist waste, fraud, or abuse. Only that I have no idea how much, in dollar amounts, those might be. But I'm not the one leveling the attack.

Government is "too big"?

Remember, this is the FOURTEEN PERCENT you've got to work with. Fourteen percent of 3.8 trillion is $532 billion. A lot of money, to be sure. But it's got to cover a lot that a lot of folks, after pausing more than a millisecond to really think about it, might not shout with supreme certainty is, after all, all that much that they're much certain about.

Take for example the federal government's borrowing in order to send salvation assistance to the states. All of them are on, or precariously leaning over, the edge. How many police and firefighter and EMT positions in your community do you want to eliminate? Think that local criminals wouldn't love to see the police force cut? Think whichever insurance company insures your house wouldn't raise your rates significantly if firefighter positions got sliced from the mix? What about teachers, how many of those slots do you want to get rid of? Remember that every physician and dentist and bridge and building engineer began as an elementary school student. Just like every physician and dentist and bridge and building engineer we'll need in the very near future. They don't spring from thin air.

Remember a while back, when the I-35W bridge over the Mississippi River collapsed in Minneapolis? What's a safe bridge or overpass -- one you and your family travel over -- worth to you? What is the dollar cost to repair one, or replace one? Do you even have a clue? You're jacking your jaws, so well informed about how bloated that 14% of the budget is. Well, tell me, then.

What about air safety; the FAA and NTSA folks who work hard, to help insure that when you take off, you also land in one piece, instead of in scattered bits and pieces across some field? That budget, how much? Or would you rather trust your life to the Walmart business-and-profits-first mentality? C'mon . . . gimme an answer.

In the not so distant past we've seen beef and tomato and chili pepper and chicken and sausage recalls due to e-coli and other pathogen infestations. Much of those recalls were traceable to too limited FDA oversight, which was traceable to Bush/GOP era budget cuts. You don't care whether the food and drugs you and your family ingest are safe? You want to bet on the private, for profit Bernie Maddoff moral principles to keep the foods and drugs you and your family take safe?

Ever been to a national park? If you haven't, you ought to. I'm not a believer, but I'll tell you that standing in Yellowstone, or atop Yosemite Falls, or at the Grand Canyon's edge is being as spiritually close to God as you or anyone in this country can ever hope to get. The healing it does to your soul makes living in an urban area worth more than you'll ever earn in your lifetime. But they need maintenance and repair; fix busted toilets, repair winter pot-holed roadways, clean up the refuse that thoughtless visitors leave behind; that sort of thing. How much? How much does it cost, and how much is it worth . . . to let it all go?

Through absolutely no fault of their own -- they were working hard, and want only to be able to work hard once again, to provide for themselves and their family -- we have been witness to the terrible tragedy of tens of millions of Americans tossed onto the street by employers unable or unwilling to continue to employ them, and who are also unable or unwilling to rehire them. Nor are there yet today replacement jobs available for those who have been displaced. Many millions have lost everything: their homes, their cars, their health care. Many more are daily in jeopardy of losing everything. What do we tell them? Tough, this is a go it alone society? So your kids are sick, suck it up? The unemployed have drained our coffers twice; once by not contributing to the coffers with taxes paid, and second by drawing from the coffers when they need financial assistance. Should we eliminate all, or just part, of that assistance? And, ignoring altogether what it would say about and do to the moral fiber of the country, how much would that reduce the deficit? Say within $100,000?

Basic math: If you eliminated every cent of the preceding components of the discretionary side, not only would that nonetheless leave a deficit of $1.1 trillion, it would also send the country caterwauling into ignominy. You, me, everyone would live in a circumstance that Hobbes, in his Leviathan, described as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short . . . then there would be chaos."

One more Internet link I think everyone should visit: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/219023. It's a C-SPAN video of February 2's House Budget Committee hearing that featured Peter Orzag, the White House Budget Director, as chief witness. Travel to where Texas Republican Congressman Jeb Hensarling confronts Orzag with a slide that purports to demonstrate how fiscally prudent the GOP was while Bush was president, as compared with Obama. His presentation actually tries to steal the 2001 budget surplus that Bush inherited from Clinton as part of the average low Republican deficits. Or travel to where Florida Republican Mario Diaz-Balart scolds the administration for trying to establish a bipartisan deficit reduction commission, all the while the GOP representative knows full well that, to pass a budget, because of Republican filibustering obstructionism in the Senate, 60 votes will be needed in that chamber, just to end the filibuster and bring the bill to a floor vote; something the legislated commission would have avoided. (By the way, the Senate bill on behalf of such a commission was co-authored by New Hampshire's conservative Republican Judd Gregg, and was co-sponsored by seven senate Republicans, all of whom, when the bill came to the floor for a vote, voted against it . . . their own bill!)

***

When I contemplate the wholly needless travesty that's being visited upon the country, and the chimpanzee-like screeching nonsense from those who are moral- or intelligence-challenged, I want to hang my head in my hands, clasp my hands over my eyes and forehead, as did Marlon Brando's Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now, and whimper, as did Col. Kurtz, "The horror, the horror."

Authors Bio:
An "Old Army Vet" and liberal, qua liberal, with a passion for open inquiry in a neverending quest for truth unpoisoned by religious superstitions. Per Voltaire: "He who can lead you to believe an absurdity can lead you to commit an atrocity."