Deficit Spending And Populist E-Mail Chains

This has been circulating in Nashville's music community this week and, at first, I was surprised to see the progenitor was-- at least inspirationally-- Warren Buffet, rather than Jimmy Buffett. "Let's see," it begins, "if these idiots understand what people pressure is all about."

Salary of retired US Presidents ... .. . . ..$180,000 FOR LIFE.

Salary of House/Senate members ... . . .$174,000 FOR LIFE. This is stupid

Salary of Speaker of the House ... .. . . ..$223,500 FOR LIFE. This is really stupid

Salary of Majority / Minority Leaders . . ..$193,400 FOR LIFE. Stupid

Average Salary of a teacher . . ... .. . . .. $40,065

Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .$38,000

In July of 2011, as the Republican threat to shut down the government was heating up, Warren Buffett, was on CNBC, went after the debt ceiling and deficits, although as Snopes.com notes, "more in the nature of a wry commentary on the workings of Congress than a serious proposal for tackling the budget deficit."

"I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election."

Without deficits there is no progressive agenda and no big things to work towards accomplishing. It's as absurd a proposition as the assertion that Buffett asked his statement be sent around in an e-mail chain (which he never did). The people who did, however, knew exactly what they wanted, which is what all conservatives always want: shutting down the progressive agenda and ending all social safety net programs. "Warren Buffett," they claim dishonestly, "is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise." It then devolves into a hodgepodge of proposals that a bunch of Obama haters came up with in 2009, ideas not remotely connected to Warren Buffett. Today they're calling it the Congressional Reform Act of 2017, which sounds pretty alluring... until you get the #7, the actual key to what these people are trying to accomplish.

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman / woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 3/1/17. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three days for most people in the U.S. to receive the message. It's time!

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

If you agree, pass it on

And if you're smart, don't. Just ignore it and work to defeat corrupt conservatives in Congress and elect progressives instead. I contacted Stephanie Kelton, formerly the chief economist for the Senate Budget Committee Democrats, about the Buffett quote (the real one) and she was surprised. "He’s got to be kidding," she told me. "If he’s not, then it is one of the most economically illiterate things I’ve ever heard. First of all, there is nothing inherently wrong with a budget deficit-- it’s simply a mechanism to put more money into the economy. Deficits can increase because of voluntary choices made by policymakers-- eg the Trump tax cuts-- but they can also increase on their own, say, in a depressed economy as tax receipts fall off and spending to support the weak economy (unemployment compensation, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) automatically increase. This is what happened during the Great Recession, when federal budget deficits automatically rose to about 10% of GDP. As Krugman observed, those Deficits Saved the World. With this 'Buffet Rule' in place, not only would we have added 535 more people to the ranks of the unemployed, but we would almost certainly have ended up with a full-blown depression on our hands."