I reposted this because it is still very relevant and describes what is going on in Washington DC so well.
An assault is when a person threatens to commit bodily harm to another person and has the means to cause that harm. Aggravated assault is when a person commits the act and causes serious bodily harm.
Our government is committing aggravated spending on a daily basis. The most egregious example of their aggravated spending is the way the FAA is handling the cuts caused by the sequester. Air Traffic Controllers are being furloughed two days out of every month. More than 15,000 loyal dedicated professionals who perform a high stress job on a daily basis working ungodly shifts every day of the week including holidays are being asked to give up part of their pay to cover a requirement to reduce spending by less than 3 percent of the budget.
The cuts could easily be met by cutting other areas that would not affect people’s paychecks, or mission essentials funds. Other government agencies are meeting the goals by cutting a portion of consulting, supply and travel budgets and reducing or eliminating improvement programs. Those cuts would meet the requirement and not impact paychecks. The cuts are so small and could be achieved without affecting anything significant but those in charge can’t make it happen.
There is frequently so much fraud, waste, and abuse of government money that is present when management is not accountable for the bottom line; that fraud waste and abuse should be the first target to make cuts. A careful study of any government budget by competent professionals from the private sector would certainly show most budgets could stand a 20 percent cut and come out being more efficient and effective.
Cutting the paychecks of dedicated professional public servants responsible for the safety of the flying public is clearly aggravated spending.
There is no reasonable explanation for cutting pay checks and putting the flying public at risk when other choices are possible and smarter. There can only be two reasons for making those choices and neither of them are good.
Let’s assume the decision was made by the Administrator of the FAA. He made the decision based on his best judgment and business sense. Cutting the pay checks of his most critical employees instead of choosing the other choices identifies him as the biggest idiot in the FAA. If this is where the decision came from then he is demonstrating the decision making skills of a man in over his head in the job that he has.
Now let’s assume that the Administrator was directed to make those cuts instead of the smarter safer cuts available to him. Why would someone make him make that decision? Again there is no reasonable explanation, but then there is an unreasonable reason. To make a point about spending cuts at the risk of the flying public and at the expense of hard working dependable employees who keep the flying public safe all day every day. Some elected politicians feel that taxes must be higher so they can spend more. The decision is an attempt to scare the public into blaming those who are holding the line against tax increases.
It’s not possible that the best decision possible was to cut paychecks and put the public at risk. The cuts are so small and easily achieved that cutting into the pay checks of critical employees who protect the public could not be the best decision. There could not be a situation that justifies that decision.
That decision could only be achieved through stupid or malice. Politicians could make a decision like that, a public servant would not. This is such a clear example of aggravated spending made by politicians who have no clue how to serve the public.
This resistance to get spending under control and to stop punishing tax payers, while furthering their own agendas that do not necessarily serve the taxpaying public is appalling.
Public Servants will protect the tax payers and the voters, but they will also recognize that the tax payers have to shoulder the burden and their needs and interests come first. The resistance to spending cuts is criminal, especially in an environment where so much fraud waste and abuse is present. Spending cuts are necessary and must be significant. Taxes must be cut. We must be taxed as little as necessary to take care of the common good. Not taxed to excess to further the political agendas of politicians.
Aggravated Spending should be a criminal offense punishable by a tattoo across the forehead and an ankle bracelet. People that stupid or evil enough to put innocent women children and tax payers at risk to protect their personal political agendas need to be clearly identified and tracked.
If they really are they stupid they have to be looked after, if they are that evil we need to know where they are at all times. We must never turn our backs on them.
Vote them out every time.