It isn't necessary to provide an accountable summary of the information, since there are several such reviews available by simply selecting any variation of the above title as an internet search option. We don't need to act as an echo or mynah bird in this regard.
The intent of this page is to simply account for the fact that even with the notability of the main players in asserting the need for budgetary alterations, nothing has changed with the government's spending habits. It is upon such a situation where greater reflection is needed. Thus, we must ask... of what is a "public grapevine discussion" of the ideas being presented, if it amounts to little more than gossip? What effect can the rest of us have on making necessary budgetary changes if government-connected individuals have little sway? If experts speaking to Congressional committees have little effect, what good will the common person do? When most Representatives were idiots before being elected, it's hard to imagine them being little different just because they were conferred with a title and can claim they represent the people... yet have little idea what their constituency actually thinks.
What is the public to do? Use the worthless avenues of "Petitioning the Government", or writing to one's Representative? Look at the effect such efforts amount to by those trying to advance some ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) or grass roots petition. Such avenues typically amount to a waste of time, money and energy. And even if a group gets someone elected to a Representative position whose primary goal is to promote a bill on their behalf, the rest of Congress could ignore, appose, or vote against it. The people have no real Collective voice. We should not need to protest in the streets. There needs to be a standardized means by which topics can be discussed by the Nation, and then voted on by the people, resulting in a Law. There is no National public discussion about the budget, and no means by which the public can vote on any issue... unless it occurs by way of some procedure of Referendum guided by rules which are deliberately designed to act as an obstruction.
The government does not play nice with the public. The only actual "open door" policy in effect between the government and the people is a revolving one. A person or a group can complain all they want... till they are blue in the face, but there is no real mechanism for changing a government that acts as a dispassionate machine... and all government workers are merely maintenance personnel. And this situation is compounded by the more problematic issue of the media acting as a communication's device that transfers and translates according to the personality Structuralism of hearsay. The media is a lousy communicator. So very often we have to take what is said, with a grain of salt because of all the internalized cultural nonsense which models a news report according to the inclinations of the journalistic atmosphere that has come into play at a given moment. The public has to go through a process of analysis to determine if there is some sort of ulterior motive for how, when and where they give a report on a certain topic, and yet exclude other topics that the public thinks is of more value. The public has to question the judgment of the media. For example, if the escalating budget is as much of a problem as it is being described, then why isn't every single media representative discussing this... until changes are made?
If the budgetary situation is as ominous as is being described, then it should take precedence over every single news item. Instead, the public is subjected to news reports which parrot one another, and are not typically directed to resolving one of the many social issues which confront us. Whereas some in the media might argue this is not their job, we have to argue that it is... particularly when they have assumed to be the central mouthpiece for practicing freedom of speech. If they are going to take it upon themselves to speak upon the behalf of the public with respect to opinion, then they should be reporting the opinion of the public... and not merely their own. Since the media claims the public has a right to know, the public should also have a right to speak, and not be subjected to media organizations who take it upon themselves to promote internalized opinions, but selectively exclude a collective opinion of the public.
For all its worth and the expertise of the informers, an expressed idea referring to the need for altering the budget to stave off a precipitous social crisis... is not providing details of how this should be accomplished. Indeed, when it is pointed out that their is a problem with leadership, there also is not a reference to a problem with the governing system into which a person may be elected, and have to work within constraints that are part of the problem. We need a new government that forces the mentality of those who have been taught to honor, cherish and protect the present government and Constitution; to adopt a new governing philosophy desperately needed in our time. We can not rely on a backwards electoral process that permits backward thinking individuals assume a position to keep the public locked into a cycle of nonsense. Both the Constitution and the Government need to be revamped... thus forcing any and all who become elected/selected for an office, to comply with the Will of the People... particularly when there are moments in legislative histories which show us that the personality of Congresses frequently convene together like a gathering of village idiots.
Analogously, we can view the government as an engine with a given cylinder capacity designed specifically for a given amount and type of fuel which no longer meets a environmental protection requirement (public protection requirement) with respect to safety, security and fiscal responsibility. Whereas there is the common allowance for permitting older vehicles to be exempt from EPA (Environmental Protections Agency) rules because they were built and designed according to the ideas of some past philosophy; the same thing is occurring with the government. We are giving in to allowing it to function, based on various traditions which exempt it from complying with the needs of today. The budgetary problems is but one expression of an old design that is polluting the lives of the public... yet, because of some nostalgic sentimentality, we permit it to be excuse from a compliance to our present needs.
All governments today are resource guzzling monstrosities. Instead of returning to the drawing board to design anew, the old chassis, drive-train, engine and accoutrements are spit shined and polished. Much like restoring a "rust bucket find" in a deserted barn (an old car or truck or jeep, or plane, or tractor, or bicycle, or antique); those who maintain their governments are those who are just as wide-eyed as those old car enthusiasts who pee and drool on themselves on making a "discovery", momentarily imagining themselves to be an intrepid explorer of some unexplored territory. This is the mentality of those against whom the public must deal with when calling for governmental change. They prefer the old vehicle, regardless of restoration and maintenance costs... whose funds come out of the pockets of millions... yet the millions do not have the main voice in saying where they want their money to go. The budget is out of control because the government is top-heavy with those who are inclined towards various nostalgic interests that are wasteful.
And they are permitted to continue being wasteful because the garage (Congress) in which they work provides, promotes an atmosphere for persuading those inside to think in nostalgic terms. Like an old garage whose walls are filled with old racing posters, pictures of past owners, antiquated gas station memorabilia, an old radio blaring songs referenced as "oldies but goodies", out-dated tools, and a bunch of old timers (or young timers imagining themselves to be "old school" attendees) discussing variations of the good ole' days as they thought they were; the public can not get on with their future when the government is stuck in the past. Particularly when the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and Constitution are pictured like a business' first dollar hung on a wall in a glass frame. In short, there is a clear reason for tearing down the antiquated architecture of the government and build structures which will emphasize projective thinking for the public.
Those who might want to provide some argument to the contrary, are like those who want to occasionally "rough it" by going camping... but with modern implements. You don't frequently hear of people wanting to "return to nature" or return to some primitive or primordial rootedness by leaving all of civilization behind. There are not very many people who could strip themselves of all civilized garments and actually live in the wild. When many of us have some modern medical appendage (eye glasses, partials, fillings, dentures, etc...) or think it necessary to carry water, food, compass, phone, sleeping gear, etc., we can hardly say we want to "rough it", when compared to some distant past era... particularly when "roughing it" is followed by a return trip to their previous brand of civilization. Likewise, those who might argue that the old government buildings are necessary for maintaining the "mood" of present governing processes, it is this so-called ambiance which the public has to try to deal with in bringing about changes, because the public does not live in this make-believe- generating atmosphere.
While old government buildings are commonly refurbished (at exorbitant costs) for those whose salaries could not possibly pay for maintenance costs— much less the energy requirements to heat, cool, and light; the minority of government officials who are housed therein for business purposes, would quickly find quarters more accommodating to their personal budgets if they were solely responsible for payments. Yet because the public is footing the bill, government officials don't have to make arrangements for their bank accounts, they only have to make arrangements for their egos, and the egos of those who can influence them to be frivolous with the public's money. If the processes of government can only be sustained by maintaining old structures through costly updated refurbishments, then the government is based on the weak foundation of a few, and not the strong foundation of the many who know how to make sacrifices.
However, with respect to budgetary discussions, it typically is only the public who are asked to make sacrifices for balancing the Nation's budget. If Congress were to vote on pursuing a balanced budget, this in no way necessarily means it will not vote itself in another raise or cost of living allowance (cola), or that the salaries of all government workers will be similarly affected. If the public and the government is asked to make sacrifices by way of increasing taxes, this does not guarantee that most of some government workers will not receive a raise to offset any loss to their wages. Whenever the bill is passed, the public is often confronted by those who are going to be able to exploit some contrived loop hole. There are far too many double-standard situations the public is having to contend with. When balancing the budget is an idea set against the larger backdrop of a governing design which does hold this as a primary issue to be concerned with, what are the people to do? Should we riot, rebel and revolt... by way of causing destruction and death... and yet in the turmoil forget to alter the structure of the government? Again, merely altering the players of the government game will not insure a progressive government, if "progress" is defined by antiquated standards.
When we have a government that is rigged against the people effecting an Actual Democracy (peoples rule/government), how is it that we can effect purposive change without resorting to violence? While some argue that violence doesn't work, this is a bold faced lie. If it didn't work then governments wouldn't have militaries and there would be no police forces. And it doesn't matter if one engages in a peaceful or violent protest... if no effective result takes place. If legal action does not serve the desires of a government, it resorts to illegal action... albeit framed in a manner that gives the appearance of some legality. Whereas governments can be kind, compassionate, considerate, chartable, forgiving (altruistic and magnanimous), the diametric opposite also is true. Governments can be the most ruthlessly two-faced creatures ever known or created in imagination... And this is what the public is up against. The "mood" of a government is subject to change like the disposition of weather. In protesting such an animal, the public must be prepared for any weather condition... in its preparations for a revolution.
But when there are so many social issues confronting us, it is difficult for the public, as a singular force, to bear a united effort to make one change, much less multiple changes. And this problem is increased multiple times over when many issues are left to be decided by court Justices who may be out of touch with the reality that the people are having to deal with. The atmospheres of multiple government agencies provide for the development of cultures which create world views with philosophies that stand at a large distance from that which the public contends with. The larger the government agency, the more susceptible is the chance for developing a culture that creates a disconnected perception of that which the public lives with. While in some cases the effect of distancing provides for the development of objectivity, such objectivity is sometimes internalized as a support for the interests of the group... and it is not used, as it should be, to further the viability needs of the public. Governments and/or government agencies frequently act as ancient monarchies shielding themselves behind ideological walls, ramparts and draw-bridges, where many of those inside never truly venture beyond into the world of those whose labors are providing for their well-being. There is no standard-issue doctrine which forces government workers to participate in a "Prince and Pauper" exchange of world-views.