Obama Slashes US Budget by Hundreds of Dollars...

So, is this hope, or is it change?

NEWS FLASH: President Obama has halted the practice of Government freebies like pens, coffee cups, etc in a move certain to reduce the federal budget by several hundred dollars a year!

Mr. President, since you’re in a mood to slash government spending, I’ve got a couple of ideas for additional cuts that might save even more money!

Bureaucracies: Sure got a lot of them, don’t we? Why? It couldn’t be a “make work” program for the cronies of elected officials, could it? You know, a guy who seems to come out of nowhere--oh, like maybe campaign-contributor Goldman-Sachs, and shazam! Next thing you know, he’s earning outrageous money to head up an agency that performs the same task others are probably already doing. Lucky thing he “knows” somebody on Capitol Hill that owes him a favor! For example: There are at least 4 Federal Law Enforcement Agencies that perform roughly the same job. BATFE, FBI, DEA and U.S. Marshal’s Service. I suggest that the FBI can recognize drugs, illegal firearms (you know, machine guns and rocket launchers), bombs and already serves their own warrants. The FBI hiring standards are among the highest, accepting only college graduates (unlike BATFE, whose headman back in the 1990’s, one John Magaw, was only a HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE. Can you say “WACO”?), and so far as anyone knows, The FBI has never provided Mexican drug lords with any firearms .You could incorporate all four agencies under one umbrella and end (in this particular case) the quadruplication of everything—from bureaucratic hierarchies, infrastructure, cars, computers, stationery and bloated government benefit/pension plans. You could let 75% of the management and half of the work force go, and again, put us on the path to solvency. Yes, a lot of good people presently employed by the federal government would be unemployed, and though it may seem unfair at first blush, it really isn’t. It was unfair of the federal government to burden the taxpayers with its own growth to the degree it has, when the Constitution’s enumerated powers granted to it have no provision for most of the alphabet soup of agencies added since the 1930’s under the auspice of FDR and his leftist crew.

Land management: At last look, the US Government claimed ownership to about 40% of the land within the 50 states. Owned in the form of Office buildings, parking garages to serve those buildings, Courthouses, Military Bases, National Forests, National Monuments, National Parks, “Wilderness”, Wildlife Corridors, World Heritage Sites (deeded over to the UN, I understand), etc. The Constitution states that the Government may only have enough land for necessary Government offices, dockyards and magazines (munitions storage facilities). All other land “ownership” by the federal Government is unconstitutional. Managing all of this unconstitutionally owned land costs taxpayers a fortune, in National Park Service and US Forest Service offices, union payscale for rank-and-file personnel as well as salaries for various levels of management , outrageously expensive benefit packages, vehicles, computers, phones, uniforms and more. And still, our forests are poorly managed at best. Look at the horrendous fires over the past decade. I know Al Gore has successfully peddled his scam that the culprit here is “climate change” (with the “planet” being saved only by taxpayers paying even MORE taxes to government), but anyone who didn’t sleep through high school science classes (and doesn’t presently hold any elected office) already knows that these fires are caused by allowing excessive undergrowth to remain, and dead trees to accumulate. Lightning and human error cause this tinder to catch fire, and destroy our forests. So, I’ve got a better idea. How about ceding these lands over to the states in which they’re physically located, and let the taxpayers in those states decide how to use the lands, lumber, firewood and any other resources within? It’ll save the nation much-needed revenue and provide jobs for residents of those states (many of the same federal workers could stay on as STATE employees, since they most likely already reside in the state, anyway). The states can easily quash any frivolous lawsuits filed by “environmentalists” in STATE district courts, once the federal Government relinquishes its unconstitutional jurisdiction.

Endangered Species: Since every endangered species is located in a sovereign state of the union or a foreign country, just how does the federal Government justify its jurisdiction? This is simply more costly and unnecessary duplication of efforts/expenses. Each state already manages and protects its own endangered species as well as game animals and habitat, and doesn’t need meddling from Washington Bureaucrats to muck up the works. Foreign species? Can’t the countries in which these critters are found draw up their own laws to protect the man-eating, disease carrying vermin they consider to be “endangered” and bleed their own taxpayers to cover the costs? Don’t want them imported into the US? We don’t need and can’t afford a bloated, agenda-driven (and, I might add, heavily armed) US Fish & Wildlife Service to further bankrupt taxpayers. Give a list of endangered species to US Customs. Control of imported commodities is already their job and they do a GREAT job. I speak from experience here, as a guy who used to import wildlife in the early 1970’s.

And what ABOUT the Federal Reserve? Ron Paul notwithstanding, the Federal Reserve is a rather curious invention of Washington and its well-heeled banking cronies, dating back to just before WW 1. My understanding is that it isn’t and wasn’t “federal” at all. Although it’s owned by private investors (mostly foreigners, I believe) every dollar bill printed and coin minted by the US Treasury Department is essentially produced under license by the Federal Reserve. In fact, every bill is marked “Federal Reserve Note” because each bill is just that, a note. You know, a loan document. Each bill printed at the US Mint is technically a loan which taxpayers must repay to the Federal Reserve Bank, PLUS interest. Adding insult to injury, we as taxpayers must pay income tax on every dollar that touches our hands to support the very government that gave us this parasitic banking system. If we figure interest @ 3%, and tax @ 15%, each dollar the Federal Reserve “lends” us costs taxpayers $1.18. Please bear in mind, the cost for the US Treasury Dept. building, the union-scale wages for the personnel who do the actual work, the paper, ink, the printing presses, cutters and packaging machinery are already paid for BY American taxpayers over and above the $1.18. THE WAY IN WHICH THIS IS STRUCTURED, IT WOULD BE MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO EVER PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT, UNLESS ONE USED FOREIGN CURRENCY TO DO IT. If we used dollars to pay this debt, we’d owe taxes and interest on each and every one of those, too. Plus, we’d have to pay the same government workers to print, cut and distribute these “loan document dollars”.  It would be an endless snake-swallowing-its-own-tail cycle, that would only end one way. Wouldn’t be pretty, either. How about this: AUDIT the Federal Reserve Bank, and make sure it’s even solvent in the first place. My guess is, it’s not. The above-reproach management of this thoroughly-protected-from-oversight institution has probably been milking its own vaults for years, and it may be tottering on the edge of bankruptcy itself. Then, the Obama administration could do what it’s done with other banks. CLOSE IT DOWN--AND DON'T BAIL IT OUT. Once the taxpayers are no longer supporting this leech of an organization, there might be some hope of eventually paying off the national debt--if government were forced to spend within its means, that is.

Why do we pay 25% of the United Nations’ operating budget? What am I getting from that collection of America-hating communists, third world dictators, religious fanatics and crooked, murderous kings that’s worth this kind of money? Maybe a better question is what are YOU getting out of it? If we are to remain a member-country of the UN (and mind you, I’m definitely not advocating that we do), how about we pay the same amount as every other country? There are about 100 member countries if I recall correctly, how about we pay 1% of the operating budget? You know, our fair share…