Now, not later
Margaret Thatcher once quipped regarding the difficulty of social democratic states to raise capital, “They always run out of other people’s money.” That typically is the result of practicing state capitalism, where a political party raises funds by borrowing with no collateral or other inadequate sources of revenue to finance its welfare state.
The United States is a welfare state that finances arbitrary expenses with other people’s money.
The United States has issued bonds in the amount of $16.5 trillion. On the unreal assumption that all bonds mature on the same day, we have to come up with $16.5 trillion all at once “on judgment day.” We would have to yield that sum or fail to honor our promise to pay. A bankruptcy-like process could require selling off assets like Washington, D.C., California, Hawaii, the military services. No such proceedings are better than immediate radical correctional debt reduction, a balanced budget amendment, etc. Now, not later.
It is popular to say we have been saved from going over the cliff. In fact we went over the cliff a long time ago. We’re at its bottom trying to figure a way to climb up to the surface. It must be one step at a time. We have no time to spare; maturities are accumulating, making steps ahead very difficult indeed. We must not sink further by borrowing to buy back those steps (bonds). We should take extraordinary means to buy them off before maturities when the prices to us would be greater.
I want to second the motion of Tamara Beinlich who was quoted in a story in The Joplin Globe (Jan. 4). If Empire District is rich enough to give its CEO compensation of over half a million per year, then it’s rich enough to spend some of its own riches to at least take care of “vegetation management and depreciation expense.”
Empire could start managing by cutting the CEO’s compensation to five digits instead of six. It seems to me a man making over half a million per year for signing a few letters, going to some “meetings” and giving orders is not only ludicrous, it’s downright not right!
My wife and I live on more than $10,000 less than the Joplin median income. We live on the edge, and every year Social Security gives us each a cost-of-living adjustment of $4, then takes it away in raising the Medicare deductible. Then, every utility service known to man comes along nearly every year and raises monthly payments. These plush utilities will keep up this nibbling at our income until Joplin’s residents will be running for the homeless shelters.
What’s with the Public Service Commission members? Are they in the pockets of public utilities? It sure seems like it. Enough, Empire.
Paul T. Butler
Editor’s note: An omission of the author’s intended word changed a paragraph in the letter below. We are rerunning a corrected version in its entirety.
Don’t waste time
If you have been keeping up with the Globe, you know that the Globe’s editorial board, Joplin school superintendent C.J. Huff and Gov. Jay Nixon all oppose “conceal-carry” in our schools.
The positions and thoughts all stem from the sad events occurring in Newtown, Conn.
And it is sad. The scary part of this scenario is the approach toward the Second Amendment. If liberals and progressives have their way, the aspects of freedom we enjoy through this amendment will definitely be in jeopardy. (The Globe, Huff and Nixon are strong opponents of anyone, except uniformed individuals, carrying guns in our schools.)
I have inquired of law enforcement officials, and they are in favor of those working with our students to have access to weapons should the situation present itself. Proper and thorough conceal-carry weapons training would be favored. Under the circumstances, they would undergo the same ongoing training required of officers.
I do not believe decisions such as this should sit on the shoulders of the district or one man, the superintendent.
An issue of this importance should be put to a vote of the people. Yes, the ballot would cost money. Is your child worth you having a say in their protection while at school? You, a teacher and a law enforcement officer are all trained the same for conceal-carry. Should an incident at school happen, who is there first?
I suggest the Globe, Huff and Nixon provide a valid reason this proposal shouldn’t be considered. The next problem is, when will we actually be confronted with this problem and will it be too late? Let us not waste time.