Burt,

Now this is a real hoot!

My compliments for your brilliant idea. Hey, since Obozo scoffed at it, maybe he would be more receptive if you just cut it in half and take only 50% of their wealth. It'd still make a huge dent in the deficit. It's the least they could do, why they wouldn't even have to panhandle.

Must be fuzzy math, or Burt flunked remedial math, but, to equal 10 trillion dollars, those billionaires would have to be worth, ON AVERAGE, 25 billion a piece. I wholeheartedly agree with his premise, just not his arithmetic........

Gee and let's not forget that Michael Milkin has already made a huge contribution to government back in the 90's when he spent 2 years in Federal prison, paid $200 million in fines and, $400 million in restitution. Who says crime doesn't pay?

On a serious note...I cannot believe all these so called "brilliant people" we have elected or that have been appointed by The Communist cannot figure out that you cannot spend more than you steal..oops, I mean collect, from the taxpayers. And yet, in their tiny minds, when they have overspent, they think they are entitled to ever more. To pay off the debt? No! To spend even more!! They are addicts. Personally I could not even fathom going to my boss and asking for a raise because I was in debt and could not manage my money. I would be laughed out of the office. That is exactly what we need to do with the current administration and whatever follows it later this year. Take away their drug of choice - the taxpayer's dollars.

Burt,

I like the idea, but I see 1 major problem with it. Most of the money these folks have is paper. In order to turn it into actual dollars to pay off most of the debt, we have to find 400+ other billionaires to buy all othe the assets. If those billionaires have the money, let's just confiscate it. I guess the problem is still solved. I actually just want to take the mentioned names money to shut them up.

However despicable these people may be, I still balk at the idea of the government simply confiscating private property, regardless of how noble the motives.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you would suggest such a thing, save in jest. But your sarcasm is usually a bit easier to pick up on. Please tell me this is a joke, Mr. Prelutsky.

Thats one way, even though it won't happen. The other way is to not re-sign the presidential order of Nixon, and put the country back on the gold standard and you will fix the spending problem within three months. Thats the surest way to do it, and the one way we actually have a chance of correcting spending. Now all you have to do is find a presdential canidate who will do it. The only one who has addressed this issue is Ron Paul. Sorry but the others haven't even brought the issue up.None of the problems that we suffer from can't be fixed with a stroke of the pen ie: patriot act. Your last column mentioned martial law. Don't know where you have been but it started with the patriot act, homland security and tsa. The only thing that says it not martial law is the fact that the military hasen't taken control of the govt. Thats why people should focus thier attention on the congressional races instead of the presidency, and ham string Barry rather than think you can vote him out. Congressional laws passed by one congress are not binding on the next congress that comes in, same with the presidential orders. Thats the best chance of turning the govt. around.

Two words: fiat currency.

MARINE has the truth of it. Even the repeal of "legal tender laws" would be a good start.

Burt - a much simpler way and it does not involve stealing anyone's money (what else would you call confiscating someone's wealth). Just eliminate every agency, bureau, department, rule, regulation, law, etc. not authorized by the Constitution. This would probably cut 90% or better from the budget. The funds saved for the first few years would enable us to end Joe Stalin's best friend FDR's scheme (social security) by making whole all our citizens who had their funds stolen for these many years (what would you call it but stealing when something is taken from you under duress? Don't pay your FICA and see what happens). Once our citizens are paid off taxes could be cut 90% or better. As an added benefit with all the unconstitutional rules, regulations, laws eliminated we would have more freedom. Did anyone say fat chance as long as the crooks and/or mental midgets are in power.

Burt, I would suggest you need a course in remedial math. Unless you had it up to here with the bovine manure from the crooks (oops politicians). Or it was a test to see if your readers passed elementary school arithmetic.

Burt,

I have an idea to get spending under control that I think is brilliant. That is for every tax paying American to not file a tax return this year. How about it. If no one files a return and no one has to pay in what they have already paid in what is Obama gonna do? Put the entire population in jail. Talk about a revolt that would wake up the tax and spend socialists. If they can't steal anymore of our money, I mean, take in anymore revenue then they have to cut spending now don't they. I admitt that it is an idea that will probably never see the light of day, and yes, I will file my taxes this year. All of the people in this country think that they actually owe the government what it asks for every year. News flash, you don't. The socialists have just been very good at making us think that over the last century. Remember why we fled Europe. Unfair taxation. I think that the IRS should itemize what percent of every penny we pay in taxes goes to and then we should get to decide what we want to pay for. The only mandate should be that we pay our share to defend America and that's it. That's all that is actually asked of us in the Constitution. The rest of is is being stolen from us.

Take money from those that have it? This proves what I've thought all along Burt: you're an "occupier" at heart. You should join the Obama reelection team and start screaming about unfairness and class warfare. Or, start campaigning for Obama against the liberal Republican favorite, Mitt Romney. Mitt, after all, took over companies and fired a bunch of people, boo-hoo. Isn't this the way business works? Have you ever worked for a company taken over by another? This stuff happens every day. And, Romney's Republican rivals are slamming him for it. Here's what Brad Wodehouse, communications director for the Democratic National Committee said about that:

“We’ll be able to show what his rivals said about him and what workers have said about him. The fact that his own Republican rivals — from a party that talks about itself as being for the free market — are offended about his practices in the private sector makes our case a lot easier.”

Democrats are overjoyed by Republican's taking swipes at Mitt Romney, saying it will end up assisting President Obama’s re-election effort. And, it will. Class warfare is what this coming election is all about.

Now please tell me, Burt: This article was tongue in cheek, right?

Burt,

I laughed my a$$ off this am -thx!!!

It's an nearly unpardonable insult to a fleet of druken sailors to liken (or call) them democrats (unless of course you're a Marine).

That fleet of druken sailors may have lived for months in crowded and austere conditions while serving their country.

You can't say that about any free-spending deomcrat politician, who always dip into someone's-- or everyone-- else's pocket when they are out of money.

...and on the bright side, it would mostly solve "class welfare" more or less. Why hasn't OWS movement thought of this?!

They're just not as creative as you, Burt.

A couple of poignant points.

Congress has most of the power of Americas finances. When democrats are the majority in both houses they spend 5 times as much as when republicans have both houses. I looked this up, this is based on spending since 1980. Further, the democrats both Presidents and congress delight in gutting military spending and delight in increasing social spending, (socialism), which first and foremost goes to cronyism.

I personally only hold the President responsible for spending when the spending is on his "baby". For ex., W Bushs 2 wars, that was Georges baby, Barac on the other hand had, among other babies, the 1 trillion dollar bailout, cronyism BTW, and Obamacare, estimated cost, trillions and trillions.

IMHO, democrats do not have money problems, they have spending problems. Further, they and their spending are not in it for the country, but for themselves at the expense of all American taxpayers. This is redistribution itself, but then there is the redistribution to the lower minion, liberal, enfranchized Americans, who sell their vote to the only bidder, for this is their most lucrative niche in life.

Lastly, republicans must one day understand that bipartisanship with the democrats is historically proven to be a one way street. First the democrats get what they want, then the democrats renege on their debt to the deal.

America is dieing. The enemy within is the liberal mindset and their democrat party. It is bad enough when the enemy from without, Islam and illegalism, come to conquer us, but for our own people to pick up the knife of socialism and stab us from within. This truely must be a biblical like sign that we rotting from the inside out. I always peg this to the liberals and the democrats failure to mature, but hey, maybe there is something nasty in their gene pool.

Nobama 2012, vote republican. Thank you.

Constitution of the United States of America - Amendment 28

Article 1: In the fiscal year following ratification of this amendment, the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, excises, fees, contributions or revenue from any source and for any purpose, any and all henceforth called Revenue, shall not exceed thirty percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the preceding calendar year. The fiscal year begins on October 1 for the next calendar year.

Article 2: In the second and subsequent years following ratification of this amendment the power of Congress to lay and collect Revenue shall decrease by one percent of GDP each year until the percent shall be ten percent of the Gross Domestic Product of the preceding fiscal year. Ten percent of the previous year’s GDP shall henceforth be the permanent maximum Revenue.

Article 3: In each fiscal year following ratification of this amendment, Congress shall decrease the total debt of the United States of America by three (NOTE) percent until the total debt shall be 300 billion dollars or less, at which time the entire debt of the United States of America shall be reduced to zero, after which time, the debt of the United States of America must be zero at the end of every fiscal year.

Article 4: Congress must contract with three non-governmental entities to determine the Gross Domestic Product, total expenditures, and total Revenues of the previous fiscal year. The three entities must agree on the figures to be presented to Congress by the first Monday of January following the fiscal year evaluated. No entity so contracted shall be eligible to be contracted again for a period of ten years.

Article 5: In any fiscal year in which total expenditures of the United States of America exceed total Revenue of the United States of America as determined in Article 4, or in which Congress fails to accomplish the debt reduction of Article 3, three fourths of the members of the Senate and three fourths of the members of the House of Representatives, chosen by lot on the first Tuesday following the first Monday of January following the fiscal year evaluated, shall be removed from office on the next last Tuesday of March, on which day a special election shall be held to choose their replacements for full or partial terms effective on the day following their elections. No member of Congress so removed shall ever be permitted to hold any elective office in the government of the United States of America, or to be employed by the government of the United States of America.

Article 6: Congress is prohibited from making loans to any entity.

Article 7: Congress is prohibited from making the United States of America a guarantor of any loan.

NOTE: To be determined based on size and type of debt, and limits of practical possibility. e.g. If the total debt is $10 trillion, then a three percent yearly reduction would be $300 billion — doable; but if the (total) debt is $100 trillion, as it may be, then a yearly reduction of three percent, or $3 trillion, is not possible, and a lower practical percent must be specified.

Burt,

Great idea, as far as it goes. However, I detect a small error in your column, to wit:

It was not Bush who "started that jalopy down the hill", but Carter. The housing bubble was conceived on his watch and it only blew up on Bush's. BO's constant blame-Bush drivel has got you believing it. If you tell a lie often enough...

But we must give credit where credit is due.

You need to get further out of the box, Burt. It already existed and will be back. It's called the estate tax. It doesn't get 100% of all of it, but it eats more than a plague of locusts.

It isn't enumerated in the Constitution, but so much of everything that Congress does isn't either, so it won't matter. Just do it!

There's hardly anything I can think of that would please me more than the sight of B.O. panhandling. I might even throw him two bits.

Cheers!

Burt, I must vehemently disagree with your characterization. You are not an ordinary American!

The best solution is for the People to abolish the Federal government and return to the States the powers that have been usurped by decades of criminal acts by seriously dysfunctional politicians. The only federal department that needs be saved is Defense.

Burt: If we keep on doing as we've been doing, we'll be looking to Greece for hand-outs.

I used to call myself part of the middle class but have found out that somehow I don't fit there anymore. I don't know exactly where I fit, but I'm no George Soros, but neither am I homeless and sleeping in boxes with newspapers in my so-called shoes to keep warm.

I've never resented people for being better off than I am. Perhaps strangely, for these times, I believed that they had taken steps earlier in their lives that enabled them to be where they were, while I had taken steps that had enabled me to be where I was: part of a working class of people who tried to stay out of trouble, pay my taxes, and say please and thank you. I also voted every year according to my beliefs.

I do resent somebody like our imposter-in-chief trying to stir up trouble among those like me (whatever class that is)and those who are what I call filthy rich, including said I-I-C (pronounced "ick").

Enough said. Well, no, not enough, but there are others who have lots of interesting things to write here. Some are even capable of the intricacies of the King's English. I like that.

Sorry, but I've been out of town. I do think that some of you need to stop reading my columns. You know who you are. You're the ones who read this piece and decided that I was being serious about confiscating all the money these people have. What is particularly disheartening is that some of you who came to this bizarre conclusion are long-time readers.

It's not only disappointing, it's very scary.

Burt

Burt,

FUNNY!

James Madison, love the proposed amendment. How about while we're at it, repeal the income tax...

Burt,

FUNNY!

James Madison, love the proposed amendment. How about while we're at it, repeal the income tax...

Scott: I would if I could.

Burt