What ever happened to what we used to think was a pretty fair democracy? One man, one vote, voter equality, true representation of what the people want, majority rule with fair inclusion of the non-majority”s views and so on. I am beginning to think we have spent the last few decades developing a government that has a lot of similarities to a fascistic dictatorship and feels it has the right to tell the people what is good for them, not what the people demonstrate they want. The self-appointed elite may not have any regard for the common people, but is they who start the revolutions
In the past few months, the people, in survey after survey have said they believe in lower spending when it does not result in more unemployment. They do not want to remain in Afghanistan or Iraq and would rather not spend those funds rather than not spend funds that destroy employment.
Californians want to have the chance to vote on the Governor”s proposals because they think it is the proper thing to do, regardless of whether they will vote for or against. When people consider the damage to our democracy caused by a very few people who use the two-thirds rule to stop needed actions, they are unhappy largely because it is not the majority government they desire. Consider that a senator from Wyoming represents an estimated half of 500,000 people, but the one representative represents all; while each California Senator represents half of 30,000,000 residents, but they have the same power of conducting a filibuster to bring things to a halt. Not exactly what I consider democracy. Probably a good compromise to get people to agree to the draft of the Constitution, when there were 13 colonies and only a few million people. Now I think the concept has outlived its usefulness. Perhaps it is time to put many of the budget proposals to a popular vote!
No one is against less spending, but the reductions have to be spelled out, not just a percentage. It would help a lot if correct levels of spending were determined, but that probably would reduce the defense establishment to where it should be and we can”t have that, can we? There comes a time when the welfare of the country simply cannot bear the emotional and human cost of too little.
And the price/tax/deficit question. The correlation between the folks who want tax reductions and those who think it is fine to pay a trillion dollars to fight unfunded wars, so that America”s future must pay the bills that we should have paid, is frightening. Paying the price seems to be considered a personal thing. We moan and grown about rising prices of goods we consume, but revel in the right of the producers to set prices. People see things that affect them directly and tend to ignore the fact that they receive innumerable services from government indirectly, without direct payment, and the “price” of those services is called taxation.
Deficits/surpluses are the result of income and outgo, whether business or government. Debt is what happens when one borrows the amount needed to offset the deficits. Americans should be ashamed that they have paid off so little of the country”s debt (try none) during the past 10 years.
For all those who think government should be more like business when it comes to doing business and dealing with reality, the realization of what our taxes would be should come as a shock.
The last time the federal government had a surplus was fiscal 2000.
I know that population and inflation have affected things, but I think the American people are entitled to an explanation of the growth in government costs by 10 years of politicians who claim they are working for the people. And debt and deficits be damned.
Guthrie “Guff” Worth
Lakeport
