Warren Buffet is a genius, this was just posted on facebook by a friend

[BlueStreak]

34. I see it differently

Let me start with an overly simplistic generalization. Let us say there are only two types of representatives:

A) Those who honestly represent the people and whose motives are true.

B) Those who are in bed with the lobbyists (and their cash) representing all the special interests that are diametrically opposed to the interests of "the people"

Of course, the world is not so black and white, but allow me that premise for a moment.

The way things are today, all the leverage and incentives are with the people who work for special interest money. And even so, we have been able to achieve something of a standoff. Some people call this "gridlock", but I think it is equally valid to say that there are enough people fighting for the interests of "the people" that we have something that looks like an equilibrium.

Now granted, it is an equilibrium that is heavily slanted towards the richest and most powerful. They depend on this balance of power to maintain that equilibrium that favors them so much.

The elegance of Buffet's idea is that those with disproportionately large amounts of power (or those who abuse the many for the benefit of the few, if you will), have the most to lose if they were to be swept out of power. Therefore, they are the ones most likely to give up some of their advantages if that is the only alternative to being swept from power.

Another way to say the same thing is that if we were to sweep every entrenched Senator or Congressman from power simultaneously, it is more likely that we would a) reduce the role of money in the election process, and b) elect more progressive candidates. Part of what makes our system so diseased is the fact that these people who never seem to leave just gather up more money and more power every year. They didn't usually start in the Congress with all that power and money. The simple fact is that none of these people representing special interests will take the chance of being swept out of power, so they will have to come to the table.

Finally, remember that debilitating austerity isn't the only way to balance the budget. Indeed austerity doesn't see to balance the budget at all. Just as Europe how austerity is going. Ask Japan how austerity has gone since 1991. They used to be the second largest economy in the world.

There are several variables to a balanced budget:

- Income (taxes, fees, etc)
- Direct program costs (military budget, etc)
- Growth rate (please note that Buffet's idea states deficit as a %of GDP, so growth is an important factor in raising revenues and also in giving the Buffet fraction a larger denominator)
- Program savings (e.g. letting medicare negotiate drug prices)

If we tell our representatives that they must balance all of those factors in an equitable way or else they will all leave office, it is not obvious to me the compromise answer will be austerity.