Rebane's Ruminations
July 2011
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Cut, Cap & Balance Lite just passed the House 218 to 210 with no Dems voting for it, and 22 Repubs opposing it.  The tea party backed Repubs came and took the heat to the end, they would not vote for an increase in the debt ceiling.  Why?  Because our continuing to borrow with no plan to pay back is what will pull the country down, and even CCB Lite won’t fix that.  That is what will cause our credit rating to be downgraded, not the piddly crap going on in Washington this weekend.

So now we have the ongoing Beltway game that’s over the heads of most Americans –

- The President bloviates (nothing scorable),
- The House Legislates,
- The Senate Kills Bills.

Academic political scientists are telling us that there is less overlap between the Dems and Repubs than there has been since the 1890s (the beginning of the American progressive movement).  However, one thing we can all celebrate in this epochal national debate on how we citizens want to relate to government is that these bills focus on the real ideological differences between our political parties.  There is no pork appended to any of these bills CCB and CCB Lite.  Therefore there is no back room deal making and back slapping as votes are traded ONLY for the purpose of insuring re-election.

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid goes into the weekend to pass his smoke-and-mirrors cuts alternative, for the first time in 30 years the issues on the national fisc and governance are singular, clear, and complete.  No cuts?  Yeah, you heard the way he added savings to his spending cuts column from the presumed halt of the mid-east campaigns.  Well, the Repubs can come back with a ‘I’ll see ya and raise ya’, and claim that we could have had NASA launch a $30T program to put a man on the Sun in this decade.  And since we’re not going to do that, we’re going to cut $30T from future budgets.  Put those cuts in our column please.

[update] Without debate, the Senate killed it.  BTW, H/T to RR reader who sent the following –

Conservative star Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) ripped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for the fantasy savings in his budget plan.

“Let’s pass a bill to cover the moon with yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. and then let’s pass a bill the next day to cancel that bill. We could save $5 trillion.”

Great minds and all that.  I guess my little fantasy was not that far off the heavy thinking going on in Washington during these hours.

[30jul2011 update]  I'm happy to report that our congressman Tom McClintock was one of the 22 Repubs voting NO on CCB Lite.  These one shots to reduce spending by a skosh over ten years along with no provision for stopping the national debt going up forever are a joke.  Such legislation will give our creditors no greater comfort, and therefore not affect our credit rating one way or the other.  'Give us more money so we can pay our interest on what we already owe you, and forget about getting back the  principal.' is what passes for fiscal policy in Greece.

930AM – Just received this document (Download S_627 Extended version_29jul11) from Congressman Tom McClintock that analyzes CCB Lite, gives the rationale for the congressman's no vote, and outlines a future course of action.

Posted in , ,

54 responses to “CCB Lite passes – 218 to 210 (updated 30jul2011)”

  1. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    What confuses me is why the Repubs didn’t try to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment during the first years of the Bush 2 Admin . They controlled the House, Senate and Presidency and could have passed it if they wanted to. That makes this whole process kind of a joke. My take is because they knew they couldn’t deliver a balanced budget because of the tax cuts for the wealthy and the unfunded wars. It’s total hypocrisy that they try to do it now when they know it will fail. That shows how much they really want to do it. How can any reasonable person take this seriously.

    Like

  2. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE, and that’s what the academics mean about the polarization. Half of us don’t really know what you are talking about as we go forward. What are you selling, pay back time? You, the President, Harry, and Nancy want to lounge and linger in some of the woulda coulda shouldas. Both sides using this argument gets us nowhere. That was then, and your then is different from our then. But this is now.
    Sumbich, I think both sides may be starting to stand on their principles.

    Like

  3. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    “They controlled the House, Senate and Presidency and could have passed it if they wanted to.”
    Probably didn’t have 60 votes.
    Not necessary mow.

    Like

  4. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Bush inherited the dot.bust recession from Clinton, followed by 9/11 just as we were beginning to recover. Everyone was a Keynesian at the time.
    The pelosi.reid.obama years were an orgy of spending. Time to reverse it.

    Like

  5. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George, It’s a very appropriate question to ask why the Balanced Budget Amendment is important now when it has no chance to pass and was not important during Bush 2 time when it could have easily passed with a Republican majority. I don’t know why that question is so difficult for the half that don’t know what I’m talking about.

    Like

  6. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    For the record I support a Balanced Budget Amendment as long as it doesn’t preclude tax increases when necessary and a war tax to support military ventures that are constitutionally approved.

    Like

  7. Russ Steele Avatar

    Here is what one voter had to say about the clown show in Washington DC: http://youtu.be/8SGyVNippvA

    Like

  8. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE (613pm) – OK, if it’s important, what would you do with the answer TODAY?

    Like

  9. JimS Avatar
    JimS

    The stagecoach was stuck
    Whipped horses could not free them
    Raven Vultures showed…

    Like

  10. bill tozer Avatar
    bill tozer

    Hey, what is all this dissing of Queen Nancy going on here? She said right after she lost the gavel that most important bill and the one she is most proud of was passing PAY-GO. You can count on her to be first in line in balancing the budget and leading the charge for The Balanced Budget Amendment. Sometimes I slip into a vivid fantasy of Nancy and Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a hot tub. Probably discussing the new decor of Nancy’s $20,000.00 per month local office at taxpayer expense, twice as much as the nearest Democrat and a wee bit higher than the 4-5 thousand/month average office rent for Congress. Yep, I can almost see Nancy mouthing the words “Pay Go” right about now.

    Like

  11. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    I think all houses should be paid for in full up front. None of this namby pamby mortgage stuff. That is not a balanced budget at all.

    Like

  12. Michael Anderson Avatar
    Michael Anderson

    Bill, those are bad dreams. You need professional help. That is no way to wake up at 4 am. Terrifying.
    No hot tubs.

    Like

  13. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Keachie: Borrowing a secured loan from a bank is one thing…borrowing an unsecured loan from China is slightly different. LOL. Nice try at an argument though.

    Like

  14. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    I just love it – the libs are complaining that the R’s didn’t act like the TP when they had the majority at the same time they diss the TP as crazy radicals. It would be helpful if the libs had any sort of plan, other than increase some one elses taxes and give me what I want right now. I can hardly wait to see what the end of life as we know it on this planet looks like. I think it will be featured at Barry’s big bash on the 4th. Harry would like to be there but he claims the R’s have him held hostage.
    The Keach logs in with the usual nonsense. A mortgage. Right! A mortgage is secured by an item of actual value. And you are supposed to put 20% down. This nation has a 3rd on our down payment and we have hocked the lumber that the house was made out of. The plumbing fixtures and the rugs have been sold to the junkman. The only reason anyone still lends us money is because the rest of the advanced (socialist) world is so much worse, we look relatively OK in comparison. At some point, folks will start to find something else to invest in, and we are toast.

    Like

  15. Bonnie M Avatar
    Bonnie M

    Russ…I think the guy you mentioned pretty much says what we’re all thinking. If they really want to cut expenses and a balanced budget they should start at the top with themselves. Thanks for sharing it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SGyVNippvA&feature=youtu.be

    Like

  16. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    @BarryP
    As soon as China figures out how to disable the nuke missile subs, the loans will be thoroughly secured.
    Besides, we are the borrowers, what do we care if the loans are secured or not, that has absolutely no concern from our point of view. If the Chinese are stupid enough to loan the money, we take it.
    Again:
    If the government needs to pay all its bills up front, then why not the average American? In particular:
    “I think all houses should be paid for in full up front. None of this namby pamby mortgage stuff. That is not a balanced budget at all.”
    Does that make it clear how stupid the TeaSnotters are about the Giant Booger Ball they’ve bungled the budget into?

    Like

  17. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    2.5 Trillion, spent on energy independence, would have been a far smarter investment than the two wars we are fighting. Anyone here care to debate whether or not the wars have consumed 2.5 Trillion so far?

    Like

  18. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    China feeds us money, as our military and other overseas expenditures help fund those folks to the degree that they can then buy China’s goods. Bring the troops home, and the foreign aid, and China’s marketplace goes into Black Hole mode.

    Like

  19. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    I can think of a lot of folks I’d like to send off on a Sun Diver expedition….read “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” if you don’t get it.

    Like

  20. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    If you are really concerned about reducing the debt, and the tax reductions for the rich have done nothing to create jobs over the last ten years they’ve been in effect, then they need to be on the table, at least as an appetizer, if not the main entree.

    Like

  21. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    To put it bluntly, the USA is TOO BIG to FAIL. So, like the banks before it, who used worthless home mortgages to make their case, the gov needs a bailout too, until the Tea Folks understand we need less military, less continuing tax cuts for the ultra rich, and more solar. a 1billion dollar prize, paid for by USA gov, for the first process that make solar twice as efficient (40% instead of 20%) at 1/2 the cost, would be a good start. maybe we’d need to double that if the company that pulls it off is based in the USA, with more than 50% of its payroll, USA certified citizens. Otherwise China might grab the prize too.

    Like

  22. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    “2.5 Trillion, spent on energy independence…”
    A small fraction of that spent on energy research would yield far better results.
    Throwing up windmills and solar plants is a manic response to a manufactured supply problem.
    You know, like banning cheap light bulbs (25cent). I’ll bet you dimes to doughnuts G.E. lobbied for the ban.

    Like

  23. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    As you can see from the data below, raising the debt ceiling is nothing new. Boehner, in his quest to be the next Newt Gingrich, is now damaging the “wealthy” he is so reluctant to tax. I wonder how much wealth has evaporated, will evaporate as a result of his games? I bet “the collective wealthy”, and anyone else with a pension plan or 401K that is invested in equities, have already lost more due to Boehner’s Bluff than the the taxes that would have been generated by increased taxes on those making over $250,000k.
    I did not verify the accuracy of the data below. It is interesting to note that the ceiling was raised multiple times a year during the Reagan years. Where was the outrage then?
    February 2010 – $14.294 trillion
    December 2009 – $12.394 trillion
    February 2009 – $12.104 trillion
    October 2008 – $11.315 trillion
    July 2008 – $10.615 trillion
    September 2007 – $9.815 trillion
    March 2006 – $8.965 trillion
    November 2004 – $8.184
    May 2003 – $7.384 trillion
    June 2002 – $6.4 trillion
    August 1997 – $5.95 trillion
    March 1996 – $5.5 trillion
    August 1993 – $4.9 trillion
    April 1993 – $4.37 trillion
    November 1990 – $4.145 trillion
    October 1990 – $3.23 trillion
    November 1989 – $3.1227 trillion
    August 1989 – $2.87 trillion
    September 1987 – $2.8 trillion
    August 1987 – $2.352 trillion
    July 1987 – $2.32 trillion
    October 1986 – $2.3 trillion
    August 1986 – $2.111 trillion
    December 1985 – $2.0787 trillion
    November 1985 – $1.9038 trillion
    October 1984 – $1.8238 trillion
    July 1984 – $1.573 trillion
    May 1984 – $1.52 trillion
    November 1983 – $1.49 trillion
    May 1983 – $1.389 trillion
    September 1982 – $1.2902
    June 1982 – $1.1431 trillion
    September 1981 – 1.0798 trillion
    September 1981 – $999.8 billion
    February 1981 – $985 billion
    December 1980 – $935.1 billion
    June 1980 – $925 billion
    September 1979 – $879 billion
    April 1979 – $830 billion
    August 1978 – $798 billion
    October 1977 – $752 billion
    June 1976 – $700 billion
    March 1976 – $627 billion
    November 1975 – $595 billion
    February 1975 – $577 billion
    June 1974 – $495 billion
    December 1973 – $475.7 billion
    October 1972 – $465 billion
    March 1972 – $450 billion
    March 1971 – $430 billion
    June 1970 – $395 billion
    April 1969 – $377 billion
    June 1967 – $358 billion
    March 1967 – $336 billion
    June 1966 – $330 billion
    June 1965 – $328 billion
    June 1964 – $324 billion
    November 1963 – $315 billion
    May 1963 – $309 billion
    July 1962 – $308 billion
    March 1962 – $300 billion
    June 1961 – $298 billion
    June 1960 – $293 billion
    June 1959 – $295 billion
    September 1958 – $288 billion
    February 1958 – $280 billion
    July 1956 – $278 billion
    August 1954 – $281 billion
    June 1946 – $275 billion
    April 1945 – $300 billion
    June 1944 – $260 billion
    April 1943 – $210 billion
    March 1942 – $125 billion
    February 1941 – $65 billion
    June 1940 – $49 billion
    December 1939 – $45 billion
    December 1919 – $43 billion

    Like

  24. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    George,
    Thanks for the doc from Congressman Tom McClintock.
    Why can’t others understand the problem and the inevitable conclusion? Or are these all one world types trying to bring down the U.S. currency.

    Like

  25. George Rebane Avatar

    DaveK – Yes.

    Like

  26. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Next time I’ll ask a hard question!

    Like

  27. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    “I’ll bet you dimes to doughnuts G.E. lobbied for the ban.”
    as did BP, which initially bought into adanced solar cells, right here in Fairfield Californeyaa, and then went back to old style. That’s why we need the prize, like what got Virgin Airlines into space.

    Like

  28. George Rebane Avatar

    I like DougK’s idea. That is something that government can do with our pooled resources. Right now there exist no cost effective ways of generating solar or wind power for a standalone electric grid, no way to really reduce the environmental impact of existing technology fossil fuel power stations. Why? Because all such installations need back-up power stations to fill the gaps in sunshine and wind. And these power stations must be running 24/7, even at zero output since they can’t be switched on/off like a light. Bottom line – ‘dirty’ power at a higher price.
    A competition would be to design and demonstrate a standalone power grid that has certain definite cost and performance parameters. A prize (money, IP rights, market primacy, …) would be awarded for its accomplishment, that is commensurate with the risk of attempting the project. An appropriately staffed government could do that (they’d first have to get rid of a couple of double dummy legions currently in their ‘labs’.) I wouldn’t mind paying a little marginal tax to fund such enterprises.

    Like

  29. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    McCain, in the 2008 election, suggested one dollar for every American as a prize.
    Do you think 310 million would be enough of an incentive?

    Like

  30. George Rebane Avatar

    DaveK – $310M would be enough for many such competitions, however, the prize must have other than cash components to make the IRR of the project worthwhile. As a systems guy, I think these competitions could be phased with prizes. Currently none of the green power projects ‘pencil out’ and are put out there under government diktat (force and subsidies). The first phase could be to submit a system design that works with accessible technology, identifying exactly where what new stuff has to come on line before the target IRR can be achieved at a certain confidence level. No one has even done that yet.
    The greens continue in la-la land, thinking like the Red Queen that they can just legislate and regulate us into the needed engineering solutions, while increasing overall misery in the land. But bottom line, I think that economic pull would work faster and cost less than regulatory push. Bring on the competition.

    Like

  31. George Rebane Avatar

    Some commenters are concerned about the impact of our trade balance on the economy and jobs. Cato has shed some light on this with ‘The Trade-Balance Creed – Debunking the Belief that Imports and Trade Deficits are a “Drag on Growth”‘ which starts with –
    A nearly universal consensus prevails that the goal of U.S. trade policy should be to promote exports over imports, and that rising imports and trade deficits are bad for economic growth and employment.
    The consensus creed is based on a misunderstanding of how U.S. gross domestic product is calculated. Imports are not a “subtraction” from GDP. They are merely removed from the final calculation of GDP because they are not a part of domestic production.
    Contrary to the prevailing view, imports are not a “leakage” of demand abroad. In the annual U.S. balance of payments, all transactions balance. The net outflow of dollars to purchase imports over exports are offset each year by a net inflow of foreign capital to purchase U.S. assets. This capital surplus stimulates the U.S. economy while boosting our productive capacity.

    The whole report is accessible here.
    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12976

    Like

  32. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George, you asked for my plan for a balanced budget so here it is.
    To begin, we redefine or define our military mission and foreign policy to enable a 20% cut in military spending. This can be done. There is huge waste in our military and foreign policy a graphic example being the billions wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan. The days of dumping truckloads of cash in the tents of Mulahs to bribe them into supporting our foreign adventures under the Bush administration will be over. Close cold war military bases and write it into the Balanced Budget Amendment that any military adventures beyond what has been budgeted be accompanied by an additionaldf War Tax passed by the Congress and signed by the President. This would insure there would be no unfunded wars in the future and any military expansion would require additional funding accommodations. The days of unlimited military spending depending on the war of the day would be over. Military spending would lose it’s “sacred cow” status
    2. Eliminate the Bush tax cuts. They did not create jobs and contributed trillions to the national debt. There is no evidence they contributed to economic growth. The preexisting tax rates are historically reasonable and associated with economically good times where the budget was balanced or nearly so as under the Clinton-Gingrich era.
    http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/
    3. Require a 20% across the board spending cut from all Government agencies. This would eliminate politics from this phase of reform.
    4. Require the process of eliminating redundant State and Federal programs. This will take time and will be very controversial but the process must happen to streamline government services.
    5. Eliminate all corporate and farm subsidies as well as tax loopholes. Establish a consistent tax rate for Corporations and eliminate tax shelters that send our tax money overseas.
    6. Create a single payer health care system with basic health care for everyone. Tax the entire population to support this, no exceptions. Create tort reform. European health care systems all require 100% of the beneficiaries to pay for it through taxation. No free rides on this.
    7. Base this years tax rates on last years expenditures and income. This would eliminate the hangover of an economically bad year that would add to the deficit. If necessary, increase taxes and cut expenses the next year. This would be required under the Balanced Budget Amendment. If there is a surplus use it to pay down the deficit.
    8. Medicare would essentially be eliminated under a single payer national health care program however tax payment would be eliminated at age 67. The taxes paid earlier would be pro-rated to accommodate retirement age.
    9. To accommodate the increasing average age raise the age of eligibility to 67 for Social Security by phasing in the change to be fulfilled totally by 2020.
    8. Require the regular monitoring of all regulations and fee’s as to whether they are necessary to accompany the mission of the Legislation that creates them.
    9. Use surplus income to pay down the national debt.
    10. Explore alternative tax systems to accomplish the same income. Consumption tax? Flat Tax? Check them all out but they would all have to face the same responsibilities.
    Under my plan the deficit would not be allowed to increase. Existing debt would be paid during economic good times.
    All citizens would have the security of health care and not have to worry about the rationing created by insurance companies that deny insurance at their whim. This would give families the security to be able to invest in a home without the threat of bankruptcy and losing their equity if they have a medical emergency.
    The idea of promoting wars to benefit the industrial military complex would be subject to the will of congress and additional taxes to pay for it.
    That’s my best take on how to do this.
    Thanks for the thoughtful discussion

    Like

  33. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    Paul, Cato Institute has a site dedicated to downsizing government here:
    http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/
    Maybe you have already seen it.
    Under the”Other Agencies” heading, they recommend privatizing the USPS as it is in a death spiral already.

    Like

  34. George Rebane Avatar

    And thanks for the comprehensive plan PaulE. There is lot to chew on here, and I recall discussing several of the points with you. To put more flesh on the bones here, could you give your thoughts on these questions, given the implementation of the Emery Plan.
    1. What global role would you see for the US?
    2. What do you see the US exporting? importing?
    3. What will be the country’s employment situation?
    4. What fraction of GDP would governments (all levels) command?
    5. What kind of transfer payments (besides healthcare) would still exist?
    6. To what extent will US join in global wealth transfers?
    In general, in what kind of a world do you foresee the Emery Plan working as an approach to sustain the US as a sovereign nation-state?

    Like

  35. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    GeorgeR, the Daniel Grizwold article is an interesting one that might surprise the “Buy American!” crowd who will probably then assume Grizwold is working for George Soros, Lol!

    Like

  36. Bonnie M Avatar
    Bonnie M

    I hate to say this, but it doesn’t matter how much we donate in taxes, or whatever, to our government. They’ll never ever get anywhere with the economic problem because government is too big and there’s too much corruption. Who are the people, or person in charge of keeping the books? Wanna bet nobody ever listens anyway? These people make it look like government is doing an honest job. However, like our local governments that have an attorney to advise them, the attorney gets the feeling that their only purpose is to make it look official…but nobody listens to them. Former GV City Attorney Dean Lawrence (and others) complained about this years ago, and cautioned that they might be sued some day. I suspect that lawsuits are settled out of court and buried. The bigger, global government some people advocate makes it easier for the gangsters to prosper, and the guns to keep them in power. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. A simple history lesson will do.

    Like

  37. George Rebane Avatar

    BonnieM, but is that not enough reason to starve the beast?

    Like

  38. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George
    I don’t see your questions as being relevant to what I have proposed. My ideas are about how to pay for what our national appetite happens to be. That’s supposedly what we hire elected officials for, to represent us in making these decisions. What you are asking me to do is go way beyond the discussion of how to create a balanced budget and attend to entitlement reform. I’d appreciate some kind of feedback on my ideas with that parameter in mind.
    That said I can’t resist responding to your questions.
    1. What global role would you see for the US?
    I tend towards a Ron Paul lite version of global affairs. Mostly take care of our own business and defend our borders. If we need to provide for the security of of our allies and business partners then we must assume the cost of paying for it. That will then be passed on to taxpayers (see above)
    2. What do you see the US exporting? importing?
    I don’t have much insight into this. If we maintain our massive need for foreign oil that’s a huge import. If the national will is to drill baby drill that a different scenario. My opinion is not relevant here. The principals remain the same.
    3. What will be the country’s employment situation?
    I have no idea. Tax cuts have not shown themselves not to be a stimulation so a return to pre Bush levels can demonstrate likewise employment levels based on history. A single payer insurance plan will remove the responsibility from the employer that should encourage job development.
    4. What fraction of GDP would governments (all levels) command?
    That depends on the will of the people expressed through their elected officials manifested in government expenses. If we cut back as I have proposed we should be able to keep it under 20% which is consistent with most developed nations. What I have proposed is a pay as you go system that will hold each budget accountable to the previous years spending. It should be under 20%
    5. What kind of transfer payments (besides healthcare) would still exist?
    Health care should pay for itself under a tax all single payer system. The definition of a transfer payment can be very broad depending on what you include. A basic social net is necessary to cater to homeless children for example. I don’t know if you include that in your question. We live in different worlds when it comes to the responsibilities of government. Whatever it is it will need to be paid for and my plan will accommodate
    whatever is the will of the people,
    6. To what extent will US join in global wealth transfers?
    I need some examples. These decisions should reflect the will of the people and may changed from year to year depending on the mood of the nation.
    As you see my ideas are a vessel that will be filled with whatever direction the country choses to go. It’s my best shot at attending to the question of how to balance the budget.
    that said

    Like

  39. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE, my questions don’t claim to be necessary for the implementation of the Emery Plan. But their answers are very relevant in making the decision as to whether we should implement EP as you have outlined it, or to make appropriate modifications.
    And thanks for taking a cut at the hard questions. The only thing that concerns me about your answers is that they imply the country’s ability to change direction after changing its mind. I don’t think that will be possible without major bloodshed. Once we take on a direction, the ship of state will plow onward and it’ll take hell and high water to change course.

    Like

  40. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    So George I’ve shared with you my best ideas of how to balance the budget. I’m not sure what yours are. II’m quite aware of your bent on the issue but exactly what do you propose we do right now. Can you outline them for me?

    Like

  41. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    George, perhaps a lesson for Paul on Federalism would enlighten him.

    Like

  42. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Balancing the Fed budget is easy – we follow the Constitution. There was a reason it was set up to not allow the Feds to start handouts. They will always get out of control as we now see. If you want to take care of homeless children, then the state or local govt can do that, but not the Feds. Healthcare is a good, not a right. The socialist countries like Great Britain already ration health care because anything that is free is always over used. If you don’t want to follow the Constitution, then we are doomed to the mess we now have and there is no way out. Everyone wants stuff and no one wants to pay.

    Like

  43. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    From the venerable WSJ,
    “The debt-limit hobbits should also realize that at this point the Washington fracas they are prolonging isn’t helping their cause. Republicans are not looking like adults to whom voters can entrust the government.”

    Like

  44. Douglas Keachie Avatar

    BonnieM
    The lawsuit industry also affects charity.
    I’m sure there are many folks like my wife and I who would love to make space for those out of work in exchange for brush clearing, etc., but we dare not do so, because the risk of a suit if anyone ever claimed that they got hurt, we might lose it all.
    Given today’s legal climate, if a forest fire swept through, we could be sued for damages from that. Very frustrating.

    Like

  45. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    I’m still waiting for someone to try putting the same amount of effort to express a comprehensive solution to the national debt crisis as I did. You may not agree with my opinion but at least I did it. All I’m seeing is slogans and posturing but no details which makes all this talk just vaporous gaspressions that work well for ra ra gatherings and group chest thumps but contributes nothing to an intelligent discussion. I’m not even getting a point by point response to my ideas. Pretty disappointing to be sure.

    Like

  46. George Rebane Avatar

    Fair enough PaulE, oh ye of little patience. Were I king, then at the federal level –
    1. We freeze our national debt at the current level, and make the spending cuts where it will make a difference – entitlements and the military.
    2. Congress would pass and the states would ratify a Balanced Budget Amendment with the usual provisos for exceeding it during times of national crisis.
    3. All legislation would be clean and focused, no hidden riders or small print add-ons.
    4. All regulatory and tax legislation would require sunsets of no more than ten years.
    5. Tax code would be grossly simplified into a flat tax on ALL income for EVERYONE (that includes charitable and welfare incomes). Corporate taxes would be discounted to the extent that the corporations participate in and fund the national Non-profit Service Corporation program (I have described this several times elsewhere).
    6. All subsidies would be terminated.
    7. Strict constitutionalism according to the Founders intentions as reflected in their writings will be implemented. Federalism for the several states will be fully restored where they can act as competitive social and economic laboratories. Senators will again be elected by state legislatures.
    8. Members of any national or state bar organization cannot serve in elective office in the state legislatures or Congress. The conflict of interest will be recognized, and such members may serve on staffs and commissions.
    9. Tort laws will be revised toward a ‘loser pays’ schema.
    10. The healthcare industry will be put on a competitive basis with an explosion of healthcare service provider levels. States will set their own standards which may vary widely.
    11. National borders will be secured with the use of deadly force where required. Naturalized citizenship will be granted to people only on the basis of serving the national interest. From here on we will provide our own poor, huddled, and tired masses who need not yearn to be free. We’ll get more of those from elsewhere when we run out of our own.
    12. All preferences for distribution of transfer payments based on race, religion, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc will be discontinued. Privately funded charities may impose any publicly declared preferences they choose.
    13. Voting will become the highest civic duty, and will be reserved for mentally competent adults.
    14. Foreign policy will be widely published and amended over time as necessary. America will openly follow the ‘tit for tat’ policy of co-operation (see Fisher & Ury) with nations and trans-national groups.
    15. Education will become a national priority, and educational technology developers and proficient educators will become celebrated national figures.
    16. Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Transportation, and HHS will be abolished. Needed agencies like the FAA, CDC, and a revised FDA will be melded into one federal service bureau.
    17. The mission of the military will be to strike anywhere at any time to secure our national interests beyond our borders. The structure of the military will no longer support extended land operations on foreign soil. We will maintain our eleven carrier attack groups and seven expeditionary force groups until we can transfer their functions onto space borne platforms. The military missions will be executed in the ‘terrible swift sword’ format which will be liable to Type I and II errors (q.v.).
    18. Federal budgets will be based on the past year’s federal revenues, with appropriate corrections to pay down national debt on the fastest prudent schedule that does no compromise our security.
    19. We are constituted as a democratic republic, federal democracies will be purged everywhere that the Constitution allows. Democracies will be minimized at the state level according to state constitutions.
    20. No more legislation from the bench – the federal judiciary will be restricted to interpreting the constitutionality of laws, and criminal cases. No public policies will be administered or adjudicated from the bench.
    21. Immediate budget cuts will be uniform and across the board except for the military. (See shutting down of federal departments.) Mutual security agreements will be negotiated with nations that can compensate us for any of our out-of-pocket costs.
    22. All foreign aid not directly contributing to national security will cease.
    There’s more, but at least that will get me started.

    Like

  47. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Thanks George
    After a quick reading we agree on a surprising number of solutions when it comes to balancing he national debt. A major disagreement is that by and large I don’t advocate policy directions but instead I tried to focus on the mechanism of how to fund what the will of the people advocate through the legislation proposed by elected officials. With that scope of discussion I will avoid comment on proposals that go beyond the process of settling the debt and dealing with entitlement funding.
    Here we go with my quick opinion [and please excuse my short and abrupt responses which will in asterisks. gjr]
    1. We freeze our national debt at the current level, and make the spending cuts where it will make a difference – entitlements and the military.
    Pretty close. I propose an accross the board 20% for a start. Entitlements require a different approach because they involve long term investment through taxation and withholding.
    2. Congress would pass and the states would ratify a Balanced Budget Amendment with the usual provisos for exceeding it during times of national crisis.
    I think a Balanced Budget Amendment is appropriate to be presented top the States for ratification. However there should be no strings attached as to the raisin of taxes if necessary
    * No such strings in place*
    3. All legislation would be clean and focused, no hidden riders or small print add-ons.
    Sure, why not
    * To me this is a biggy, that’s where all the crap leaks in*
    4. All regulatory and tax legislation would require sunsets of no more than ten years.
    Sure, why not. they would then be voted on again to continue. That also should apply to drug laws such as the illegality of Marijuana and Hemp that were enacted in the 1930’s.
    5. Tax code would be grossly simplified into a flat tax on ALL income for EVERYONE (that includes charitable and welfare incomes). Corporate taxes would be discounted to the extent that the corporations participate in and fund the national Non-profit Service Corporation program (I have described this several times elsewhere).
    That’s a stretch George. Your NSC idea may be visionary but it’s your vision and would not necessarily have majority support. The idea of a McDonalds non profit inc evaluating nutrition and food safety makes me burp.
    we sang this song elsewhere, it is a red herring
    6. All subsidies would be terminated.
    Generally I agree but without a full knowledge of what this includes I cannot agree.
    and therein begins the problem
    7. Strict constitutionalism according to the Founders intentions as reflected in their writings will be implemented. Federalism for the several states will be fully restored where they can act as competitive social and economic laboratories. Senators will again be elected by state legislatures.
    This does not affect the process of balancing the budget. There are as many interpreetations of the Constitution as there are of the Bible so how do you decide which is the right version? That’s why we have the courts.
    Disagree. This very much affects the balancing of budgets.
    8. Members of any national or state bar organization cannot serve in elective office in the state legislatures or Congress. The conflict of interest will be recognized, and such members may serve on staffs and commissions.
    Yes indeed I agree. My friend Utah Phillips once said that to allow Lawyers to make laws is the same as allowing doctors to invent diseases, which is indeed what they do.
    9. Tort laws will be revised toward a ‘loser pays’ schema.
    No no no. That makes it impossible for unfunded plaintiffs to have access to our system since they would likely have to put up a deposit to present a case. The tilt would be towards the wealthy having total control over what is presented to the courts. No NO No
    I would suggest looking at some approaches used in Japan and the EU (e.g. Denmark) as a start point.
    10. The healthcare industry will be put on a competitive basis with an explosion of healthcare service provider levels. States will set their own standards which may vary widely.
    No. I believe in a single provider as an alternative to Medicare with everyone under 67 contributing.
    Then we have the unsustainable EU solution with ever increasing GDP fractions and rationing.
    11. National borders will be secured with the use of deadly force where required. Naturalized citizenship will be granted to people only on the basis of serving the national interest. From here on we will provide our own poor, huddled, and tired masses who need not yearn to be free. We’ll get more of those from elsewhere when we run out of our own.
    Deadly force is not ok when your dealing with desperately poor human beings trying to find a better life. This is beyond the scope of the budget process and while I understand the simplicity of your solution I cannot subscribe to the methods.
    Talk to the unions about this not affecting the budget. The real cost of illegal aliens is a PC secret abetted by the lamestream.
    12. All preferences for distribution of transfer payments based on race, religion, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc will be discontinued. Privately funded charities may impose any publicly declared preferences they choose.
    It depends on shat is meant by transfer payments. I need specific details as to your definition.
    I don’t have a definition but use the standard government definition, google it.
    13. Voting will become the highest civic duty, and will be reserved for mentally competent adults.
    Whoa there. Are you advocating an IQ test or something like that. Since your subscribers refer to anyone who disagrees with them as idiots and stupid or worse if that mentality created the test I would surely not pass.
    Two-sided sword, my subscribers come from both sides, one of which referes to the right as “regressives” and goes down from there. Are advocating that mentally incompetent vote? This is a Peter/Paul budget issue.
    14. Foreign policy will be widely published and amended over time as necessary. America will openly follow the ‘tit for tat’ policy of co-operation (see Fisher & Ury) with nations and trans-national groups.
    This is beyond the mechanism of insuring a balanced budget and would be widely different depending on who is in power at the time.
    * Very much a direct budget issue. Ignorance of its impact on budgets helps keep us where we are.*
    15. Education will become a national priority, and educational technology developers and proficient educators will become celebrated national figures.
    If it’s a national priority why do you propose eliminating the Department of Education? What if Georga, for example decides to eliminate compulsory education or makes it a family pay per student requirement that would eliminate poor children?
    Be any measure the DOE has been the worst thing to hit education in the last hundred years. Let the states handle it, they will serve their own best interests = national interest.
    16. Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Transportation, and HHS will be abolished. Needed agencies like the FAA, CDC, and a revised FDA will be melded into one federal service bureau.
    Nah Too sweeping for me. Certainly duplicating efforts with States should be eliminated
    17. The mission of the military will be to strike anywhere at any time to secure our national interests beyond our borders. The structure of the military will no longer support extended land operations on foreign soil. We will maintain our eleven carrier attack groups and seven expeditionary force groups until we can transfer their functions onto space borne platforms. The military missions will be executed in the ‘terrible swift sword’ format which will be liable to Type I and II errors (q.v.).
    The mission of the military needs to be evaluated and defined. I generally with qualifications agree with Ron Paul’s ideas of the proper use of military force. I suggest a reading of “Why We Fight” http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul274.html
    18. Federal budgets will be based on the past year’s federal revenues, with appropriate corrections to pay down national debt on the fastest prudent schedule that does no compromise our security.
    Yes indeed with tax increases to avoid deficit if necessary
    19. We are constituted as a democratic republic, federal democracies will be purged everywhere that the Constitution allows. Democracies will be minimized at the state level according to state constitutions.
    I really don’t understand what you are saying here. I need examples. This does not affect the process of insuring a balanced budget.
    No examples needed beyond memory of high school civics. Directly affects appreciation of and mechanisms for insuring balanced budgets.
    20. No more legislation from the bench – the federal judiciary will be restricted to interpreting the constitutionality of laws, and criminal cases. No public policies will be administered or adjudicated from the bench.
    Beyond the scope of a mechanism for insuring a balanced budget. The Courts are used by both sides to further agendas.
    That’s why this principle needs to be rediscovered. And again, courts legislating cost, tax, and fee impacting mandates directly affects the growth of the economy and government revenues, hence balanced budgets.
    21. Immediate budget cuts will be uniform and across the board except for the military. (See shutting down of federal departments.) Mutual security agreements will be negotiated with nations that can compensate us for any of our out-of-pocket costs.
    No No No. Yes budget cuts No to excluding the military. They are not a sacred cow and waste unbelievable amounts of money. (truckloads of cash in Iraq}
    You never addressed US role post-liberal cuts to military. Our and our friends’ sovereignty is based ONLY on our military strength. When that goes, war starts, and all else here goes by the board. We are not Denmark.
    22. All foreign aid not directly contributing to national security will cease.
    The definition of “national security” is necessary here and will be widely interpreted, We give around 3 Billion a year to Israel for example. How do you determine what portion of that applies to national security? Try to take on that lobby.
    For now, all of $3B to Israel applies to national security.
    Whew. Excuse typo’s I did this fast Me too, apologies.

    Like

  48. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Here’s a simplification of my ideas on how to balance the budget. The details of what make up the expenses are not important in this model. Whatever the final expenses of the budget are they need to be equal or less than the previous years income.
    If not there will be a mixture of tax increases and across the board spending cuts till things get balanced. If the previous years spending ended up exceeding income then it will be paid by tax increases and spending cuts. The only additional debt allowed would be temporary. Additional military use will be covered by a war tax. Health care is self sufficient through universal tax support, everybody pays.
    Pretty simple. If people want more government it’s paid for as we go.

    Like

  49. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE, as far as it goes, I can also live with that paradigm, save for the health care part which needs more noodling. Thanks.

    Like

Leave a comment