People and Big Numbers

A small part of the problem with federal (and state) budget deficits and ridiculous spending is that people don't really comprehend how large the wasteful spending numbers are, and just how much money we are flushing down the proverbial toilet of government [in]efficiency. People can kinda grasp up to about a million dollars: that's "a lot" of money (enough to retire still, for many people). To that end, I offer the following suggestion: all official government numbers for deficits and spending, when in excess of $10,000,000, will be expressed as number of millions of dollars.

Thus, when we're talking about California's annual budget deficit, instead of saying "45 billion dollars", politicians will be forced to say "45 thousand, million dollars". The estimated federal budget deficit for next year before Obama's "waste as much money as possible" spending package will be "one million, two hundred thousand, million dollars". Obama's spending package will be estimated at "750 thousand million dollars (before added Congressional pork", etc.

I really think this would help a little in hammering home to the average person just how much money the government is printing to give away to insiders, special interests, and government waste. Consider that Bush is about to request another three hundred fifty thousand million dollars, so that Obama will have some spending cash to give to special interests right out of the gate (since Bush already gave away the first three hundred fifty thousand million dollars to investment banks and other financial institutions with insider connections). Then again, perhaps everyone's seeming lack of outrage is not due to the incomprehensibly large numbers of your money the government is taking from you to give to their buddies, in which case this exercise will not affect much change. It would still be a worthwhile change, though, in my opinion.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I Hate Obama-speak

Every time Obama speaks, it aggravates me. It's not because of his method of speaking or speech itself: he's a great public speaker who's clear, eloquent, and polished. It's also not because he uses a teleprompter obsessively, is very good at not straying from whatever canned message or pitch has been written for him, and dodges answering any probing questions with real information: most politicians have perfected these arts, and they have become so ingrained in our political process that they are as expected as they are unhelpful in conveying actual information. It's obviously also not because he lies: most politicians lie, usually very well, and Obama can state even laughable, preposterous fallacies without even breaking stride, but again, that's expected, normal, and uniform in today's politicians. No, none of these things are the reason Obama's speeches really get to me. See, Obama comes across as a smart guy, and every once in a while you get a semi...
Read more

If there was going to be a public health care plan...

I realize a public health care plan is a bad idea, but it did get me thinking: if I were making the bill, and everyone else strongly wanted a public plan, is there a form of the plan which I would be agreeable to? I thought about it, and I think a public plan would be eminently workable, provided it has some simple immutable provisions. Now, I don't think the Democrats are going to put anything like this into their disaster of a plan, much less be capable of adhering to all the requirements, but I would venture to say that if they truly wanted bipartisan support, this would be one way to get it; I strongly suspect most Republicans would back a public plan with my simple provisions. Without further ado, the provisions: - All public employees will be covered by the same public plan with the same benefits, from every level of government from janitors to the President. This will ensure that the plan is good, provides reasonable coverage, and Congress has a strong incentive to get it ri...
Read more

Why the housing market decline is far from over

Image
This chart shows the recast dates for various loans over the next five years, based on the current rate of negative amortization (copied from CalculatedRisk ). I think it would be fair to assume that most of these are going to be defaults, as soon as (or slightly after) the recast time; almost everyone who can afford their house is either already in a fixed-rate mortgage (and thus not appearing on this chart). This virtual tidal-wave of defaults represents roughly $25,000,000,000 worth of housing inventory being added to the market, per month, for the next five years . For reference, the NAR's latest statistics indicate there are only about $66B in sales of existing homes, per month, total, in the whole US. That lines up pretty well with the latest estimations of total home sales which are foreclosures, which is around 45% (REO's are selling slightly better than non-REO's, cause they are more realistically priced). Most people agree that the housing market is not likely to...
Read more