From Yahoo Finance, apparently quoting Warren Buffet in 2011:

Buffett stated, “I could end the deficit in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.”

Reminds me of Perot's suggestion to raise the gas tax. Here's his explanation, apparently from the Clinton-Bush-Perot debate from 11 Oct 1992:

Q: As part of your plan to reduce the ballooning Federal deficit, you've suggested that we raise gasoline taxes 50 cents a gallon. Why punish the middle-class consumer to such a degree?

PEROT: It's 10 cents a year, cumulative. It finally gets to 50 cents at the end of the fifth year. I think "punish" is the wrong word. I didn't create this problem; we're trying to solve it. Some of our international competitors collect up to $3.50 a gallon in taxes. And they use that money to build infrastructure and create jobs. We collect 35 cents, and we don't have it to spend. I know it's not popular. But the people who will be helped the most by it are the working people who will get the jobs created because of this tax. Why do we have to do it? Because we have so mismanaged our country over the years, and it is now time to pay the fiddler.

BUSH: The question was on fairness. I just disagree. I don't believe it is fair to slap a 50-cent-a-gallon tax. I don't think we need to do it.

Both Perot's and Buffet's are rational (something you couldn't always say about Perot) "Give me the place to stand, and I shall move the earth"-style answers. It is that easy to create change and achieve goals -- and, because politics isn't engineering, not that easy, all at the same time. But if you put representatives' self-interest between a problem and a solution like Buffet does, you should get some movement. (Unfortunately, I would also nearly guarantee the deficit would be EXACTLY 3% of GDP, at least until there was a loophole that allowed it to be bigger :sigh:.)

Buffet & Perot's answers are definitely solutions from business owners. You can see in Bush's answer that he's got a much different mindset: not alienating voters is his primary concern, not solving problems [quickly].

I wonder why there's such a difference business vs. politics, where you can convince people in a company to follow difficult decisions so much more easily than a country. I mean, sure, it's obvious: In one case, the executive can can you. In the other, they [ostensibly] can't. But why isn't there the same buy-in? You could argue one's stake in their government should be greater than what they have in their company. Anyhow...

Labels: business, economy, government, Other Stuff

From nytimes.com:

Eliminating premium subsidies
would put health insurance out of
the financial reach of millions of
Americans who now have coverage.

Both the subsidies and the mandate
are needed to keep young, healthy
people in the insurance pool.

Insurance companies need
young, healthy people to help
pay for older, sicker customers.
Without them, the companies
would have to raise premiums,
and millions more could
be priced out of insurance.

Oh, I get it. You mean it's a pyramid scheme. Kind of like how the stock market should continually improve if you wait long enough. If the population doesn't keep increasing significantly, we'll have fewer hands to pay out than those from which we can collect, so I guess we'll at least keep natal services affordable, right?

Can I perhaps modestly propose reading John Scalzi's Old Man's War?

Labels: economy, Other Stuff, personal finance