SIGN UP - IT'S FREE!

Not a member? Sign-up

Forgot your password?

SEARCH FSM

FSM Archive                Search Must Reads


PetSmart

1-800-PetMeds

TigerDirect

HOME > PUBLICATIONS > Government in the Red? No Pay for Congress or the White House

  • IN THIS SECTION

Five Sept. 11 Suspects to Face Trial in New York

The Obama administration has announced it will try 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9-11 Gitmo detainees in a civilian federal court in New York, allowing them the protections of the U.S. Constitution even though they are not U.S. citizens.

Do you agree with this?






View results



Four Radical Chinese Muslims Transferred to Bermuda

Four Chinese Uighers (radical Chinese Muslims) were recently transferred to Bermuda. Do you think it's a good idea to release Gitmo detainees to idyllic vacation retreats?






View results


April 2, 2009

Government in the Red? No Pay for Congress or the White House

Jonathan Strong

Obama has brought some changes, undoubtedly. Has an administration ever asked the CEO of a major corporation to step down in the past? Has the White House ever attacked private citizens from the bully pulpit like Obama has towards Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Jim Cramer, or Rick Santelli? Has the executive ever let such irrational debt spending ever occur in the past, even in times of war? However, his proposals are nothing new because statism and central planning are nothing new. Obama supporters are usually just too ignorant to recognize this reality.
 
Obama is using the fear of (not the reality of) a financial crisis to ram through monumental change in America. America may never recover from the leftward lurch it is currently experiencing without bold new ideas and leadership. It is almost inconceivable that the current occupant of the White House is making the corporations and institutions that are the bedrock of capitalism the perceived enemy of the people. This is especially worrying when considering that the United States owes its success and power to the free markets. The economic ills we experience today are due much more to the intervention of the government, cronyism by the elites, and "pay to play" politicians like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Chuck Schumer.
 
What is freedom except the basic freedom to choose? Freedom of choice is the summation of capitalism, and democracy follows close behind. When the government makes economic choices for individuals, the political choices for individuals will also be centralized in time. As appeasement is to surrender, so too is central planning to tyranny and despotism.
 
I have a bold but simple idea to help prevent the government from growing beyond the consent of the governed. This is not a cure all, but one aspect which I believe would assist in stemming the tide toward statism. If the government runs a deficit the elected representatives receive no pay.
 
The representatives would include members of the House of Representatives, Senators, the President, VP, and the cabinet. Only when the government runs a surplus from year to year using the same accounting principles as the private sector will these representatives be eligible for their salary.
 
I suspect some would worry that the government would be handcuffed in times of difficulty, such as we experience today. However, the representatives previously mentioned should surely be willing to sacrifice for their country just as average citizens do, not to mention the men and women in uniform who risk far more than their salary on the front lines.
 
If the government wishes to be "in the black," it will have the choice of either cutting spending or raising taxes. The self interest of the individual elected representatives (the core of capitalism) will result in a shrinking personal bank account, which is unlikely, or a government that is forced into accountability. I would guess that the earmarks Congress and the President so dearly love would get a much more scrutinized review. New programs or ideas would have to be balanced against actual "necessities" necessary to the defense and well being of the nation.
 
Reagan's words regarding government action seem so appropriate today in light of GM and Chrysler: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it."
 
I believe that if my idea was implemented the government would be forced to account for its actions personally, instead of mortgaging the future of children yet unborn. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on my proposal, feel free to send me an e-mail.
 
At the very least I hope I stimulate discussion and the creation of ideas. We could use a few new ones.
 
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Jonathan D. Strong graduated from the Michigan State University College of Law. He is a member of the Florida bar and currently resides in a suburb of Toronto, Ontario. E-mail: strongconservative@gmail.com.

Reader Comments: Submit Your Comment (0)

Print This
Share It: 
Submit to: Digg Submit to: Del.icio.us Submit to: Facebook Submit to: StumbleUpon Submit to: Newsvine Submit to: Reddit