Wednesday, March 6, 2013

To Cut Spending there must be Consequences

Republicans recently voted to raise the debt ceiling limit for another three months. In return, the Republicans said the Democrats must propose and pass a budget or Congressional members will not be paid. After all, the Democrats have failed to do their duty and pass a budget in Obama’s first term. Even Democratic Senator, Michael Bennet, from Colorado proposed “Pay-Go” legislation that would require the government to cut spending to offset any new spending proposals. Some of these are good proposals because they tie consequences spending, but they are not harsh enough. After all, “Pay Go” was ignored and time will tell if the Republican debt ceiling proposal will also be ignored.

Why is there a double standard between individual and private sector spending compared to government spending? Individuals and companies who fail to meet financial obligations are forced into bankruptcy and or can be imprisoned and fined for failing to pay taxes. Whereas, the government faces absolutely no consequences for failing to pass a budget; or to meet the financial obligations of a budget; or to meet the financial obligations of any law, mandate, rule, regulation, or policy.

What else can be done to punish or place consequences on congressional leaders for not doing their jobs other than withholding pay? We can also penalize individual and Party campaign contributions for failing to meet financial obligations. Campaign contributions have totaled over 15 billion dollars in the Obama era for federal elections. Although this pales in comparison to our federal budget, it is still a lot of money, and without it, it would cost many politicians their jobs. It is certainly more money than congressional salaries. Hence, individual and Party campaign contributions should be fined for not passing a budget. Campaign contributions should be fined if they fail to meet a budget’s fiscal limits. Campaign contributions should be fined when legislation fails to meet CBO projections. And campaign contributions should be used to pay for ethical and congressional investigations into political wrongdoing.

Penalties could also be made much harsher such as suspending, banishing, firing, and imprisoning congressional members who have been fined for multiple spending violations. Some may argue that this is out of line and too harsh, but these are the same consequences individuals face for failing to meet financial obligations.

The onus should not be placed on corporations and individuals to pay for ObamaCare if it fails to meet its CBO projections after 10 years. The people who passed this awful legislation should face consequences such as pay and campaign contribution fines to help fund any budget shortfall. This will force legislators to be more prudent, to read the law the before passing it, and to adjust legislation on the fly to prevent budget shortfalls. This would force legislators to make unpopular decisions such as fixing budget shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security instead of kicking it down the road.


  1. Well if people will not impose the ultimate penalty - ejection from office - they aren't likely to impose fines.

    We're aren't going to get people's attention until THEY themselves have to suffer the consequences of their own choice of government.

  2. I agree 100% CW. At that point maybe people will finally come to their senses and start to vote for less government.