Federal deficit forces elimination of three states

Washington, D.C. – Officials at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Monday that the $10 trillion deficit generated during the Bush Administration’s federal budget will necessitate the phasing out of three states over the next five years.

“The bottom line is that this country can not continue to operate in the red,” CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin explained flatly at a morning press conference. “Citizens may not realize it but this country has no less than fifty independent states. Fifty. In the business world, that’s what is known as ‘redundant overhead.’”

The cutbacks in statehood will begin when federal officials close the doors on the state of Illinois on Dec. 31, 2012, shutting down our 21st state’s government agencies and encouraging businesses and residents to relocate to one of the 49 states remaining in operation. South Dakota will incur a similar shutdown in 2007 and New Jersey in 2010.

Holtz-Eakin said that eliminating the states is not only expected to provide relief to the federal deficit, but will also serve to strengthen the solidarity of the remaining union.

“Trimming this prize fighter of a nation down to a lean forty-seven [states] is key to staying competitive in the current global marketplace,” said Holtz-Eakin. “Naturally, homeland security will be improved because a smaller country is that much easier to defend than a big one.”

CBO public relations manager Theodore Hadley said that following each state’s closure, independent contractors will be commissioned to liquidate the state’s natural resources and prepare the lot to be used by the federal government as storage space.

Although initial cutbacks in statehood will leave a majority of U.S. citizens unaffected, CBO warned that failure to balance the federal budget by 2015 could force Washington to let go of several more states including Michigan, Delaware, Kentucky, Wyoming, Minnesota, Ohio, Arizona, Oregon, Idaho, Maine and North and South Carolina.

“You can’t continue to increase spending while tax revenues remain stagnant – something had to give,” said Hadley. “It comes down to simple choices: would you rather have health care or Delaware? Maybe I’m nuts but I think most Americans would say health care.”

Outspoken opponent of the plan Congressman Tom Osborne (R-NE) recently argued that, logistical problems aside, CBO’s plan is flawed in that it makes no provision for limiting federal spending.

“While I admire their creativity on this matter, CBO’s failure to address our out-of-control federal spending is grossly negligent at best,” said Osborne.

Rebuffing the criticism, Holtz-Eakin called Osborne “short-sighted” before asking a reporter exactly which state Osborne represents and scribbling the answer onto his legal pad. Holtz-Eakin later named Nebraska along with four other states when indicating that more cutbacks may be required in the future.