I like simple things. And the simplest, most comprehensive article on this year's budget appeared today in The Motley Fool.
"It's only mandatory until Congress says it's not mandatory." If rules are preventing vital change, why not change the rules?"
I don't always agree with The Fools' financial advice: When they weigh in on politics (rarely, if ever), I have to pay MAJOR attention.
The Fools' article is devoid of partisan rhetoric. It is "Just the Facts." Please read it. Oh, that our Congress could deal with facts instead of partisan posturing. Perhaps We People can understand; every re-elected incumbent is unable to do the same.
"In the end, the most honest thing one can say about Obama's spending proposal is not how radical it is -- but how ordinary it is. Today's federal spending is simply following a track it's been on for the past decade. And that's the problem."
When Congress was barely doing its job, I suggested that 2006 expenditures would be covered by actual 2008 or projected 2011 income. Today, I have to ask according to an old meme: "Are you better off in 2011 than you were in 2000? Have Government expenditures of Taxpayers' payments IMPROVED life over the past decade? I would say NO: and our Congress (avaricious tho they may be) ought to take a holiday from the whims of lobbyists who write their legislation and the corporations and organizations who fund their campaigns, and actually represent The People who elected them.