Budgets, credit, spending, saving, . . . . . . . INSANITY!!!!

Wow.  For supposedly a bunch of smart folks we elected to "REPRESENT" us in Washington DC, well, we apparently need to collectively check our work.  Revenues are short of covering everything, we're at our credit limit, income is NOT likely going to increase anytime soon, and the answer is . . . . . "More credit please!"  Oh, yes, and make sure it's high enough to cover us through this next election so we can not only CONTINUE to pay for all the unnecessary crap we promised you to get here in the first place, but so we can do it and NOT be bothered by it (or YOU) during our campaign to get back here.  There's a LOT of you unemployed right now, so you can, of course, understand why we wouldn't want to be bothered by questions that probably would end up with US unemployed.

What is going through their heads.  Yes, I'm a political conservative at heart, but that means I'm oriented towards minimizing government (Gee, think a reduced government would be cheaper to run?) and keeping them out of our personal business.  My DEMOCRAT wife agrees on this point.  They seem to think we need them for everything and require the tax (and credit it seems) to keep them that involved.  When WE'VE undergone some job losses, and hence an decrease in revenue, we didn't go to the remaining job provider and say "Well, since you've cut hours to save YOU money, you need to pay us MORE per hour so we maintain our income level"  I guarantee the least result of that would be to be laughed out of the office.

Well, maybe that's what we should start doing to them:  laughing (Or rather, voting) them out of office.  What's WRONG with a balanced budget amendment.  Heck, Harry Reid wanted one before it went against what he wants now.  What's wrong with making it a requirement that we don't spend more than the revenue we get in?  If we think we need more money to spend?  Put it to a vote, and get the required majority to agree, both on the amount of an increase AND what the increase would be designated for.  That SHOULD better reflect what the PEOPLE at large want, since THEY are the ones who elected the senators and REPRESENTatives to vote the way WE feel.  After all, it's NOT really about keeping THEM employed as much as it is about keeping this a REPRESENTATIVE government OF, BY, and FOR the people.  I think a LOT of them have forgotten about that.  THEY work for US.