Why can't we reach an agreement on meaningful budget cuts/reductions/savings...or whatever you want to call it?
OK, that isn't a new question. But it's one that begs-and I don't think has received-much of an answer.
There are a lot of federal programs that benefit a lot of people. Not all of them benefit a vast majority of people. But it seems even those helping a relative minority of people are spared the budget ax.
Why? Because they have enough vocal critics-and a lot of lawmakers who listen to them, and, themselves, benefit monetarily from them (in other words, get things like campaign contributions from these vocal supporters), that they get a "pass" time after time.
And while states such as West Virginia and Ohio boast of keeping their budgets balanced (something they're required by law to do), they, too, are beneficiaries of federal dollars.
In short, no matter how much the federal budget is reduced, or how it's reduced, somebody is going to get hurt. It's a good idea to limit the hurt as much as possible, but, to achieve a meaningfully balanced budget, it can't be avoided.
And, yes, that includes the most vocal group of all, people who are getting Social Security benefits (which someday will include just about everybody).
So this budget stalemate, which threatens not only to shut down the government, but send the still-fragile economy in general into a tailspin, is about more than just "Obamacare".
It's time for Congress, the president, just about anyone in the government to do something about it...and quit worrying about who will get upset about it.