Looks like I've got the same virus/crud that Emily had ... just as she's starting to get better. I'm staying away from work in the hopes of keeping everyone in dispatch from getting sick, but before I collapse I wanted to see if a dollop of satire would make me feel better. For those of you who recognize the title: Yes, it is a shout-out to Jonathan Swift.
SLIGHTLY OFF THE MARK
I’ve paid more attention to the Occupy Wall Street crowd since they were endorsed by the American Nazi Party, the Communist Party of America, and Iranian university students. Anyone who thinks protestors can’t accomplish much should remember that in other countries all three of those groups started out with protests, and all three accomplished great things.
I mean “great” as in big, world changing things, mind you, not great as in “wow – chocolate ice cream!”
I understand some protesters call themselves just “Occupy” now, in the modern “Madonna” like spirit of being known by only part of your name. It goes without saying that most of them are not racists, communists, or Iranian, just as most Tea Partiers are not from the fringe elements spotlighted on TV. In fact, both groups are similar in ways they’d rather not admit, right down to being against something “Big”. The main differences seem to be that Hollywood loves Occupy, and the Tea Partiers are less messy.
My gut feeling is that the Occupiers may be protesting the right people, but in the wrong order. The really bad guys, both in screwing up the economy and being dangerous in their power, belong to the category of Big Government, and it’s the Capitol Building that America’s citizens should again occupy.
If politicians bow to those who give the most money it’s because we, the people who have the ability and responsibility to get rid of bad politicians, don’t. It’s an American’s right to get rich within the limits of the law (and if a huge corporation legally pays little in the way of taxes, then we need to change the tax law, don’t we?) It is not a politician’s right to spend our grandchildren’s money for thirty years without worrying about his constituents kicking his butt to the curb.
Of course, it also goes without saying that if an American gets rich outside the limits of the law, he needs to be called on it. That once again brings us to Congress, which has the responsibility to pass and repeal laws (and come up with a budget, but I guess they forgot that). No one should be above the law.
(“No one should be above the law” brings us again to Congress.)
Still, people are mad at the rich, and class warfare is right around the corner. So, I’ve come up with a modest proposal which I believe will go a long way toward solving many of America’s problems:
I propose we eat the rich.
Now, hear me out.
There’s a terrible drought going on around the Texas area, and that’s one big area. Farmers in that area have had to sell off livestock because there’s nothing growing that they can feed their animals. The result, over time, will be skyrocketing meat prices.
An e-mail has already circulated in New York threatening to kill the wealthy. Roseanne Barr suggested we oil up the guillotine. If we’re going to off them anyway, why waste all that nutritious meat? Sure, it might be high in fat, but so is Roseanne’s head.
The Obama administration believes anyone making over $250,000 a year is rich, and since that’s over eight times what I make I’m inclined to agree with them. That’s about 1.3 million corporate CEO’s, lawyers, athletes, entertainers, and people who got their cash from Mummy and Daddy. Even once you’ve removed the inedible, such as Charlie Sheen, you’re left with enough supply to stock every McDonalds in the world for another billion served.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: “But Mark, doesn’t that include people who provide jobs in America?” Sure, but that’s the beauty of it: Many job creators are so spooked by upcoming and present government regulations, and threats to their bottom line such as Obamacare and proposed new taxes, that they’re sitting on their capital rather than investing it in new operations and production – and thus jobs.
That’s only part of the problem, but in any case the money will be freed up once they’re shaked and baked.
I figure their replacements, who no doubt will accept an extreme pay cut to avoid the other kind of cutting that includes being served with a baked apple in their mouths, will be younger and more willing to take chances. They’ll also want to keep someone from poking them to see if they’re done. That’ll free up money, which can go half toward new jobs and half toward taxes, and all toward everyone being happy.
Except the rich, and they’re only 1%. Well, actually those making over $250,000 are closer to 2%, which means one percent is hiding in the enemy camp of 99 Percenters. (So that’s what Michael Moore is doing there!) Maybe we could cut those people (pardon the pun) a break: Since the 2% currently pay 43% of all federal income taxes, we should probably keep half of them around until the combination of increased corporate spending and lower food costs improve the economy.
There are other advantages to my Eat the Rich idea:
One out of fifty of America’s homes will soon be unoccupied (after all, if one person’s rich, isn’t everyone in his family?), which will give all the remaining people a place to live.
The rich, having eaten rich food, will be not only nutritious but delicious.
Rich people will no longer buy their way into public office; the closest they’ll get to a victory party will be on a hors d’oeuvre platter.
We can sell all their belongings to pay off the debt.
The removal of all the most popular athletes and entertainers will level the playing field for newcomers. Who knows? Sports might actually become sports again.
There is one downside, though: the official income for Congressmen is … under $250,000.
No plan is perfect. Bon appetite.