Madison v. Washington
Have you considered the contrast between Madison and Washington? Not the fathers of our Constitution and country . . . the capitals. Only 847 miles separate these cities, yet they are worlds apart. In Wisconsin, legislators are fighting over real budget reform while congressmen in the District of Columbia tinker with cutting pennies in spending. Where does the biggest moral problem lie? Is it in Madison, or Washington, or somewhere else?
Love him or hate him, Gov. Scott Walker is trying to tackle Wisconsin’s budget problems. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Walker called his plan “politically bold.” Does bold action translate as moral action? Not necessarily, but I give Walker points for speaking truthfully and for trying to do what he believes to be the right thing.
Now, let’s turn to Washington, D.C. Discussing his thoughts about running for president in 2012, Congressman Ron Paul told The Wall Street Journal last week, “There’s no sign that they’re very serious. If they want to cut $6 billion in one of these CRs (i.e., a Continuing Resolution—an appropriations bill to keep the government operating), the Democrats are nearly hysterical about it. I mean, we’re talking about the national debt going up to $2 trillion and we’re tinkering around with a couple billion here and there.”
Cutting $6 billion in the face of a $2 trillion deficit is like cutting $30 from a household budget that’s under water by $10,000. Cutting $100 billion—the full amount promised by Republicans for this fiscal year—is like cutting $500 from our household deficit example. That’s tinkering, for sure. Ron Paul acknowledges that some legislators are getting frustrated, yet he also notes that many of these same legislators are unwilling to touch politically sensitive items like Medicare, Social Security, and the military. “It just goes on and on,” Paul said. “I just don’t believe they’re sincere about cutting back.”
Although Wisconsin has a legal requirement to balance its budget, its citizens appear to be tired of paying for bloated state government. It’s hitting them in their wallets. This scenario is playing out in other states as well. But when it comes to the obscene federal budget problem, we Americans appear to be content to pile debt onto future generations who don’t vote and protest.
The country’s biggest moral spending problem isn’t in Madison, or Washington. It’s in our hearts.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top13 Comments to “Madison v. Washington”
Aye, maybe if the feds had a legal requirement to balance its budget we’d have more Scott Walker’s and Ron Paul’s…
Report comment to moderator
Washington may have a spending problem but it also has an income problem.
I’m not sure how incompetent management is a moral problem unless its done on purpose — such as Walker’s tax credits or stripping collective rights in order, he claims, to save money yet he also claims its not a fiscal bill. You can’t have both claims.
Report comment to moderator
So long as there is a spending problem, your only feeding the gambling addict the more money you give him. So raising taxes is a bad idea.
Can you raise income levels when trying to pay off debt to do it faster? Yes. But there are plenty of other ways to do that, than simply raising taxes. Raising taxes is an inefficient means to that end.
“I’m not sure how incompetent management is a moral problem unless its done on purpose”
So ignorance should excuse morality? I don’t agree. Nobody ever means to do it “on purpose”…didn’t you see Shawshank? Everybody’s innocent.
Report comment to moderator
No but mental incompetence is an excuse.
Report comment to moderator
Madison and Washington does not have an income problem. They get more than enough money. They just got into debt by over spending.
They did the same thing I did, now I have to cut back on things I want and get my budget back in line with my income. I am spending to much on interest. Pay off the debt and we will be fine on our current income.
Same with Madison and Washington!
Report comment to moderator
In reading “Madison vs. Washington,” I noted that the household budget analogy used by Lee Wishing was similar to a Jonah Goldberg opinion piece I read last week entitled “Dems’ Dull Budget Scissors” at National Review Online. This prompted me to go back to see exactly how close the analogies were.
Here’s the pertinent Goldberg paragraph:
“But given their terror of forcing a government shutdown in this tea-soaked climate, Democrats were forced to counteroffer with a cut of $10.5 billion, or 0.28 percent of the federal budget. Imagine you have a budget of $10,000 (about 40 percent of it borrowed on a credit card), then “slash” 28 bucks. That’s what it’s like to be a frugal Democrat.”
Lee Wishing’s hypothetical family has a 10,000 debt and they manage to cut $30 (based on $6 billion in proposed cuts) while Goldberg’s family has a $4,000 debt (40% of 10,000) and they manage to cut $28 (based on $10.5 billion in cuts). Perhaps I’m missing something, but it seems to me that someone’s math must be faulty. Am I wrong?
Report comment to moderator
It could be that the math is wrong. I doesn’t seem to make any difference. No one (that matters) is listening to the advice anyway. Maybe it should be phrased that we’re quibbling over how many fewer dollars we are going to borrow each month than how many few dollars we’re going to spend. Does that make it easier to face some hardships and cuts? I don’t know.
Report comment to moderator
revoking the bush tax cuts on the wealthy 2% would increase income without adverse effect. And combined with some spending cuts … However, the Republicans took the military and homeland security off the table so this will be a hopeless attempt balancing the budget by nickel and dimeing the poor, seniors etc.
Report comment to moderator
“evoking the bush tax cuts on the wealthy 2% would increase income without adverse effect. And combined with some spending cuts”
Why penalize the wealthy because they aren’t in debt?
Besides a 2% increase is like trying to stop a freight train with your pinky.
If the government can shoulder any portion of the enormous debt it’s accrued, then there is never a reason to raise taxes.
Report comment to moderator
The current crisis stems from the massive bailout of Wall Street and these loans are now being paid for by nickel and diming seniors which really is like stopping a freight train with your pinky.
If the 2% is so little why did the Republicans predict dire consequences if it was allowed to lapse.
Report comment to moderator
“If the 2% is so little why did the Republicans predict dire consequences if it was allowed to lapse.”
Why does chicken little predict the sky is falling? Who knows.
I could care less about who said what in politics.
How are seniors being nickeled and dimed on loans? Unless you purchase one, you are not liable.
Report comment to moderator
that is , social programs are dieing a death of a thousand minor cuts just to pay the for the money given to the financial class. Thus the rich were bailed out on the backs of the poor, the old and the sick.
Report comment to moderator
Ah, well that’s a better way of putting it. I agree with you that they should not have been bailed out as far as the companies that were stupid.
I think most of us here were saying that then.
It never makes sense to support failures, financially. Your only going to waste more money.
They should have given, if anything, to those who were stable, low risk, and responsible.
I don’t like lumping it into “rich” or “poor” categories though. The reason we are still afloat is because there were plenty of “rich” men who did not gamble or go the high risk route. I see no reason to penalize them because of the bad apples. There are plenty of home owners who did not purchase a loan beyond their means to pay for it why penalize them?
Were they also affected like the poor though? I think so. They’ve been forced to bail out the idiots just as much. I’m middle class, but I’m certainly affected by that bailout move just as much as my neighbors.
The current poor and seniors at least still get a few nickles and dimes…I doubt my generation will see a penny thanks to this mess.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!