This month’s column was originally entitled simply “The 2009 Federal Budget.” That was before I realized that my article from September 2004, entitled “Oprah, Barbie, and Kirstie Alley,” has had more hits (4,723) on the Red Shtick Magazine website than any other column I’ve ever written. Wow, I bet Oprah’s name had something to do with it!

Oprah is admired by many and has a huge fan base, but I would never use her name solely for the purpose of garnering undeserved attention to my column, although it would be easy enough for me to do so. For instance, last month’s article about LSU raising ticket prices (“L$U: What Cost Victory?”) could just as easily have read “L$U Raises Ticket Prices: What Would Oprah Think?” and my column would have had several thousand more hits.

But that’s enough about Oprah. Let’s get on with the real subject of this article: the 2009 federal budget.

Last month, President Bush proposed a $3 trillion federal budget for the year 2009. Bush originally asked for $3 zillion, but he changed his mind when advisers pointed out that “zillion” wasn’t a real number. This is just a proposed budget – after Congress has an opportunity to “cut the fat” and “eliminate the pork,” the budget will probably come out at $10 trillion.

Of course, the federal budget could just as well be $100 gazillion, because the federal government really doesn’t have $3 trillion. In fact, it probably doesn’t even have two trillion! (Although Oprah probably does.)

So where does it plan on getting the money? Will it just print more of it? Will it keep maxing out one credit card after another? Or will it do what most Americans do when they want something they can’t afford: borrow the money? And if Oprah Winfrey is so darn wonderful, why doesn’t she ante up a few billion dollars herself to help balance the budget?

These questions are too complex to be addressed in a low-budget humor column like this, by someone (me) who doesn’t even fully understand it himself.  Suffice it to say, the government will spend money it doesn’t have, which will lead to a huge budget deficit ($410 billion), which will contribute to the increasingly gargantuan national debt, ($9.2 trillion), which will further enlarge the already swollen and puffy Ted Kennedy(230 pounds).  Most people are unaware that Senator Kennedy’s waist size is directly proportionate to the national debt and functions as a virtual economic barometer of the nation’s fiscal health.[1]

The deficit won’t be enough to stop Uncle Sam from sending out rebate checks in May to many taxpayers, in hopes of helping the ailing economy. (Oprah makes too much money to get a rebate.) If people spend their rebate checks, this plan will work. However, if taxpayers do something foolish with their rebate money – like stash it away in IRAs or use it to pay down their home mortgages – the government will be pissing its deficit-generated money in the wind, so to speak.

Obviously, the utilization of this rebate money is too critical to be placed in the hands of ordinary taxpayers. To insure the rebate plan’s success, I suggest putting the money in the hands of a notorious spendthrift, someone who can be trusted to spend it like a drunken sailor. Of course, I’m referring here to the federal government, which could then use the rebate money to purchase high-definition TVs for taxpayers based on the following criteria:

·        Single taxpayers with an income of $100,000 or less: 32” HDTV

·        Married taxpayers with no children and an income of $145,000 or less: 40” HDTV

·        Married taxpayers with two or more children and an income of $145,000 or less: 58” HDTV

Even if this rebate plan doesn’t help our own economy, it will certainly aid the economies of China, Korea, and Japan, where most TVs are made.

On the subject of outrageous expenditures, Louisiana recently spent $5 million to hold a presidential primary, even though Louisiana’s delegates are not obligated to vote for the winner. Mike Huckabee won the Republican primary in Louisiana, but a large majority of Louisiana’s delegates intend to vote for John McCain anyway. Huckabee called Louisiana’s primary system “goofy.”

I have this to say to you, Mr. Huckabee: Yes, spending $5 million for a meaningless election may, in your sore loser opinion, seem “goofy,” but at least my computer doesn’t put red squiggly lines under “Louisiana” like it does every time I type “Huckabee.”

Conclusion

What can we learn from all this? First of all, the government, if it wanted to, could somehow find the money to end global warming, eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, fight wars all over the world, put us all on welfare, and give most of us huge tax cuts and rebates, if it just taxed the hell out of extremely wealthy individuals such as Oprah Winfrey.

[1]Oprah herself is no stranger to the roller-coaster world of weight gain and weight loss.