Limbaugh HAS a heart…maybe?

When Rush got out of a Honolulu hospital last week the Drs said his chest pains had nothing to do with heart disease.  Many of us are not sure Rush even has a heart?

Limbaugh was quick to point out — on his way out of the hospital —at a hastily put together news conference, that he “…doesn’t think there is one single thing wrong with the U.S. health system.” 

Good for you Rush.  Most people making $400 million a year also don’t seem to have any problems getting the service they need.

However Rush, lets suppose you really worked hard for a living and didn’t make $400 million a year.And didn’t choose to live in a state that had zero state taxes.

Lets suppose you were just a regular fat 57 year old with a history of drug addiction, back problems, and “undiagnosed” chest pains and had  a job that paid about $36,000 a year….or less.  

Chances are you couldn’t even get health insurance.

Rush you are what’s called a fat cat…who wants to keep all the other cats skinny and without health insurance.

Thank goodness there are a lot of Americans with more empathy for their less fortunate neighbors.

Cut Back the Cut Backs

Furlough days at the UC and CSU campuses may be fun and games for those students looking for a free pass to cut class, but there’s nothing fun about the tuition hikes and fee increases that come along with the higher education budget crisis.   For the 2009-10 year, the state reduced the CSU budget by $584 million, according to the California State University Long Beach President’s letter to campus community. Of the total $584 million, an approximate $42 million was cut from CSULB alone.

As a full-time student at Cal State Long Beach, I just paid $2,185 to enroll for my final semester as a senior, up over $300 from last semester. Although I’m paying more money, I’m attending less school, as professors have been required to cut back on their teaching days without pay.

This UC and CSU budget deficit has been all over the news. Protests have been taking place at campuses throughout California and many have been speaking out about the negative implications that all of this entails.   In addition to increased tuition, admissions have been cut, school fees have been increased, available classes have been reduced and faculty have been let go without the funding to keep them employed.

CSU Chancellor Charles B. Reed announced in November that these budget cuts will produce a 40,000 reduction in student enrollment over the next three years.   “The state needs our graduates to enter the workforce and help the state’s economy recover,” said Reed. “But, when your budget is cut so drastically, we are left with little choice but to restrict our enrollment.”

Limiting admission of students willing and eager to earn a degree is an unfortunate event. Increasing the tuition of those already admitted, in some cases forcing them to leave school as a result of a lack of funding to pay for it, is unfortunate as well.   What’s most unfortunate, however, is that, according to Save The CSU, an organization developed to educate the public on California’s education budget deficit, between 2005 and 2025, “approximately 3 million college graduates will leave the work force.”

With the current budget crisis having such a negative effect on higher education enrollment, once all those employment opportunities begin to open up, what will happen when we find ourselves with not enough college graduates to fill them?  I understand that California’s budget crisis leaves this state in a bad situation. And I understand that reductions must be made as necessary to help California get back on its feet. What I don’t understand is why California’s future, those working to earn an education and make a difference in the world, are the ones forced to pay the price so drastically.

Proposal To Save 8 Billion Dollars A Year On Government Expenses

When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers.  The remaining workers need to find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.  Wall Street and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of “tough decision”, and his board of directors gives him a big bonus.

Our government should not be immune from similar risks.

Therefore Here’s some suggestions: Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members (Two per state and four for the eight biggest states) and Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State-) Also reduce remaining staff by 25%.

Accomplish this over the next 8 years.(Two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

Some Yearly Gains Include:

$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress.(267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)

$97,175,000 for elimination of the above people’s staff. (estimate $1.3 million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the Senate every year)

$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr)

The remaining representatives would need to work smarter and would need to improve efficiencies. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country?

We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your representative is doing.

Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives was established. (Telephones, faxes, computers, cell phones; to name a few)

SUMMARY OF THIS OPPORTUNITY:

1-$44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
2-$282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
3-$150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
4-$59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
5-$37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
6-$7 ½ billion “pork” reduction added to bills by removing half of Congress!

That’s a savings of over $8 billion just to start; and there’s a good chance they would work faster and harder –and get along with each other.

Congresspersons should have to serve 20, 25 or 30 years- like everyone else- in order to collect retirement benefits. (No telling how much we would save on that.) Now they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.

Is this a joke – - – or maybe not?

Anonymous