Internet Soapbox

I know that for the most part this has been a "humorous" blog. That is, I write what I may think is funny and then you guys read it and mildly chuckle at something, while every once in a while a gem like The Tiny Man comes about. But I feel as though it is my civic duty to help improve this country, as well as make it laugh. Today, I'm going to get up on my Internet Soapbox and put forth a radical new idea that may very well improve the nation. More than likely it will be completely ignored by anyone with any real power. But I can pretend that what I have to say is a good idea and important right?

My idea today concerns the Federal Budget...somewhat anyways. I've obtained a copy of the Mid-Session Review of the Federal Budget, available here. Now, Its about 46 pages of tables, balance sheets, and accounting jargon that most of you are probably not trained in at all, and some of you only minimally. I personally can only scratch the surface. But a-scratched' I will go.

First off, for all you economic naysayers. Look at pages 11 and 12. These are the economic assumptions made by the Federal Government, Federal Reserve, and leading national economists. Gross domestic product has in fact grown by a robust 3.4% from last year, based on year 2000 dollars. That's a very healthy clip. And although that may lead to a higher inflation rate, the Fed Reserve is going to do everything within their power to curb that. Which basically means they will raise interest rates. The economy is good. Quit your bitching.

Now the budget on a whole is at 2.472 trillion dollars. That's an astronomical number. That is a number comparable to the number of stars in the milky way galaxy. But it still only represents about 20.1% of our 12.271 trillion dollar GDP. The net deficit runs at about $333 billion in the red, or about 2.7% of GDP. While that may seem like an impressive number, its really not. The government projects to be at a 1.1% deficit by 2008, so once again, things aren't as bad as they seem.

But there does seem to be a big stink raised lately of the "inflating" government budget. Mind you, its only inflating in inflationary terms, at a pace slower than GDP.

But everybody loves it when there are surpluses...or at least less negative defects. And I have an idea that might help reduce the deficit. You see, the government is notorious for approving Pork barrel Projects, projects that require huge sums of money to be given out to various states for things they may or may not need. These projects are usually championed by Senators and representatives as something that will provide an economic boon to the state, which means more tax dollars to the federal government as a whole. One that many people don't know about is how the US Government keeps the price of corn, milk, and other agricultural products artificially high by buying up huge surpluses left behind by the free market. If they didn't do that, then the market clearing price of such farm commodities would be much lower to your average consumer, AND our tax dollars wouldn't be wasted on buying up unsold milk so it can be destroyed. But the most famous of these projects is the fabled Bridge to Nowhere.

Visualize a double span, rising to 200 feet above ocean level, going from Ketchikan, Alaska (pop. 14,500) to Gravina Island (pop. 50 on a good day). The only thing of note on the island is Ketchikan's airport, which has six passenger flights most days. Maybe a few more during the summer. The ferries between Ketchikan and the airport run half-filled. And Ketchikan isn't even connected to the North American road system; if you go more than 10 miles from town, you run out of road.

This bridge, was earmarked for federal funds. A project that was estimated to be between 200 and 300 million dollars. Thats a lot of money for just 50 people to get to the mainland and not have any road access to the rest of the state. That's about $4-6 million per person. Now the only place in the country where you can find 50 people worth more than $6 million dollars on one small island is Manhattan. And they have several bridges that cost considerably less to build. Now recently the government, probably out of embarrassment, dropped the Bridge from its budget, but allowed Alaska to keep the money they got for it and spend it as they wished. And the Alaskan Governor is deciding to keep the bridge going. This got me thinking. Alaska only has a population of 626,932 people. And they get large sums of money for those people. Now I bet a state like California: pop 33,871,648, gets a lot of money. Probably more than Alaska. But I bet per person, Alaska actually gets more. And it probably gets more money per person than either New York or Texas too. And that is where the problem lies.

My proposition is to rework how the government gives the states money. No longer should the government earmark funds from its own federal budget for state projects just so Senators can serve another 6 years. I believe that the total amount of money that is doled out to states should be examined, and several of these pork projects cut. Then take the remaining total dollar value and divide it by the total population. Each state would then get a certain amount of money per person that they have living there. A sort of per-capita distribution of the money. It is then up to the states to judiciously decide how to responsibly manage their monies. And unlike the social security debacle that we've had, where its only slightly been adjusted for inflation every so often, these funds would be adjusted for each successive budget. Say inflation ran at about 2% from 2005 to 2006. Then the states as a whole would about 2% more nominal dollars per person. And since a census is done every 10 years, it wouldn't be any more of a cost burden to collect population data than it already is.

Of course, this plan would never pass. There are too many special interest groups who help put the congressmen and women in office and expect those government kickbacks in return. And then there are the people of the states who get more than their fair share, they will be upset too. But maybe some of that 200 million that is being spent on a bridge for 50 people and the money spent on a few million gallons of unsold milk could have been earmarked for something like....I don't know, DISASTER RELIEF?

If you think this is a good idea, then write to your local congressperson or senator, or at the very least leave me a nice comment to make me feel like I'm not a total crackpot for thinkin up this harebrained scheme.