Debt crisis

When I was a teen and first heard that the US Congress was passing a bill, effective immediately, granting themselves a pay increase, I was incensed. It seemed too much like greed. Back then I had no idea of how much they were earning already. I really had no idea at all about minimum wages or even normal household expenses. Perhaps my parents were trying to shield me from the realities of life. No, back then I merely thought that the pay increase should affect congressmen after they were reelected – or new ones elected – but it should not be applicable for the then current incumbents!

Fast forward through years spent earning the minimum wage, and better wages too, through years  working for the government and times when the US budget wasn’t approved – briefly – and a years of experiences abroad, I think that some radical changes are definitely needed, and they don’t have to be about increasing a debt ceiling.

When any individual plans a budget they should consider their income and the most basic expenses. Nations must do this too, whether or not they want to. As some big businesses have found, and certainly many small businesses: sometimes the executives must lead the way and set an example by taking a pay cut. In the case of the US, the public officials should all take a pay-cut all the way down to minimum wage. Furthermore, no one currently serving should be granted a pension above minimum wage. These drastic changes would free up a considerable amount of money. Serving the people should not become milking a cash cow.

I believe that moving to less-expensive accommodations would do the representatives of the people a world of good. They would certainly be closer to experiencing what the people they supposedly represent experience. Nevertheless some adjustments could be made. Perhaps two sets of clothes could be provided per annum, as they were in medieval times, but these would have to be from an approved domestic economical provider and must be entirely made in the country to help boost domestic production. Perhaps a budget tab for one set entertainment fee per annum could be included with a cap on either the number of persons the tab would cover or the actual amount.  But it should be realistic to what the average citizen spends, and not inflated by a swelled head of pomp and circumstance when in fact the representatives are there to serve the people.

Some provision should also be made to cover the least expensive means of returning to their home states also, so they can keep in close touch with the real sentiments, thoughts and expectations of the people they supposedly represent, rather than supposing that they already know what the people want, or, worse, having the gall to tell the people what they need without bothering to listen to what the people demand. Failure to do these things cost Marie Antoinette her head. I am not saying that this situation is so close to the boiling point, nor do I advocate such drastic action, but I do think that if the representatives do not take a massive pay cut and bring their own expenses into a stark minimal budget, that history will repeat itself.

If high public servants have savings accounts or other income, they can of course use that to support themselves more luxuriantly, IF they forgo all claim to any public monies and support.

There are two things at play here. One is service. But, underneath service is the principle of the wealth of nations, which is not based on the notion of the “rich get richer and the poor get poorer” but rather on the distribution of wealth in such manner that no one is without the basic necessities. No one. Everyone should be able to have healthcare; education; food; and a place to live, including heat, water, and waste disposal. Everyone. Do what it takes to ensure that everyone gets at least this and the wealth of the nations shall increase, because none shall want.