Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Or go back to the 1,000 points of light. Give back to the states everything except that that is truly federal and let them compete. We'll see how long Mississippi lasts before it goes bankrupt.

That's a choice of whether we're a nation or not. My advice on that is to explicitly change the Lincoln Doctrine that a state isn't allowed to leave. Then let the states that want to scram. If they can make it on their own, via con Dios. Texas and Alaska have oil -- maybe they could (but like Soviet Republics, we should collect their nukes before they're allowed out the door. The way the right does science I don't think we need worry about them making their own.)

It may well be that the undercarriage votes to go, once and for all. If they do, we'll struggle by somehow. If they don't, they'll be explicitly recommitting to the Union, this time voluntarily (which is healthy), and we can end all this crap about the gol' durn' gubmint once and for all and get some work done.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You mean require a balanced budget? Someone should let the feds know about this novel idea.

I mean a balanced budget and a line item veto exercised by the Speaker of the House. How you like them apples? (Some Constitutional Amending Required)

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I swear, it sounds like you guys are saying all taxes are justified, as long as there is something to spend it on. There will always be something to spend money on if you are the government, there is no accountability.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I swear, it sounds like you guys are saying all taxes are justified, as long as there is something to spend it on. There will always be something to spend money on if you are the government, there is no accountability.

Good. After we're done here and the Feds are only doing Fed stuff you can move to the State with 0 Taxes that exists only on what the Feds provide. You'll have an FBI, and maybe border security (Depending on where you are) and FDA, etc. Police, Fire, Public Schools will go away. Basically, Mississippi. After all, taxes are theft.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I swear, it sounds like you guys are saying all taxes are justified, as long as there is something to spend it on. There will always be something to spend money on if you are the government, there is no accountability.

If it sounds that way, I'm sorry, it's not what I meant. What I meant is taxation has no "justification" other than the cost-benefit analysis of the good it purchases against the costs it accrues, which, in a nod to your opinions, include dampening effects on future economic growth, as well as the cost in liberty associated with any coercion of any individual. See here for a detailed discussion of the latter.

Taxes are accountability, because they are deeply unpopular. Holding down taxes while continuing to spend is what evades accountability. Our elected representatives should not be in the business of deciding on taxes -- that should be the job of an ombudsman, who takes the amount Congress spends and sets the tax rates accordingly. Simple math.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I mean a balanced budget and a line item veto exercised by the Speaker of the House. How you like them apples? (Some Constitutional Amending Required)

No way I'd go for that. If you have a line item veto, give it to the President, not some political flunkie that's elected by their House colleagues to be the speaker. As much as I don't like Obama, I'd much rather have him have a line item veto than Nancy Pelosi. Egads, the thought of that will haunt me for awhile!

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

If it sounds that way, I'm sorry, it's not what I meant. What I meant is taxation has no "justification" other than the cost-benefit analysis of the good it purchases against the costs it accrues, which, in a nod to your opinions, include dampening effects on future economic growth, as well as the cost in liberty associated with any coercion of any individual. See here for a detailed discussion of the latter.

Taxes are accountability. Holding down taxes while continuing to spend is what evades accountability.

Really you could structure it going either way, focusing on taxes as accountability, or capping spending to only what comes in the door. I just have no faith that any solution or system put in place inside the Beltway won't be manipulated in ways beyond what we could imagine.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

No way I'd go for that. If you have a line item veto, give it to the President, not some political flunkie that's elected by their House colleagues to be the speaker. As much as I don't like Obama, I'd much rather have him have a line item veto than Nancy Pelosi. Egads, the thought of that will haunt me for awhile!

I was trying to take it away from the Executive -- the power of the purse is the duty of the legislative branch (indeed, its historical raison d'etre). But I take your point.

Presumably the only way to do it then is by pro-rated cuts. Then the individual fiefdoms will pump up their numbers to try to avoid actual cuts by distorting the ratio, but we'll cross that bridge later -- what we're trying to do here is create a mechanism that forces cuts. Fairness is a whole other can of worms.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Really you could structure it going either way, focusing on taxes as accountability, or capping spending to only what comes in the door. I just have no faith that any solution or system put in place inside the Beltway won't be manipulated in ways beyond what we could imagine.

That's what the pro-rated cut idea in my prior post tries to do.

I prefer the idea of forcing people to choose explicitly, however. Otherwise we'll wind up with 80% across the board not distinguishing between what we really need and what politicians need to bring home as pork. Force up or down votes on every expenditure, and ring each up as an incremental tax increase, each time. Post it on a big monitor above the well -- start it at 0.00%* at the opening of the session and start adding.

That will certainly change the tone of floor debate.

* Edit: on second thought, start it at the percentage required to cover non-discretionary spending. No way out of that.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

I'd prefer the Feds cut everything and give it back to the States. 90% of the spending problem nowadays is because the Feds overplayed their hand and took away the State's ability to compete with one another.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

That's what the pro-rated cut idea in my prior post tries to do.

I prefer the idea of forcing people to choose explicitly, however. Otherwise we'll wind up with 80% across the board not distinguishing between what we really need and what politicians need to bring home as pork. Force up or down votes on every expenditure, and ring each up as an incremental tax increase, each time. Post it on a big monitor above the well -- start it at 0.00%* at the opening of the session and start adding.

That will certainly change the tone of floor debate.

* Edit: on second thought, start it at the percentage required to cover non-discretionary spending. No way out of that.

Thinking about the idea, I'm not sure I like it. People would vote for flashy stuff that would sound good to the public, when a lot of the most important stuff done by the government isn't the flashy stuff, but is important for the basic functions of government. Over time you might see a gigantic budget for national parks, like hundreds of billions, as that's something the public would identify with, whereas something the public doesn't identify much with, like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, would gradually be starved of even minimal funds. The whole idea is fascinating, but in the end every idea falls on its face because the American populace and the politicians they elect, don't necessarily want transparency and budget responsibility if it interferes with their desire for short term gratification and financial largesse. It always comes back around to the fact that the American populace is the problem and until they really show they want change, there is little to no hope of meaningful change. But then the whole thing is so murky and mucky, a lot of the populace will never go through the efforts to halfway grasp this stuff. So, we're doomed!

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

START ratified 71-26, 9/11 responders bill passes by unanimous consent.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

This is all entertaining, except that both sides spend all their time quibbling over something like 15% of the budget.

You can raise taxes
You can cut military spending
You can cut or eliminate social security and/or medicare

Those are your options if you want to get even close to a balanced budget. Odds are you have to do all three at this point. Arguing over a few billion spent on some stupid pork program is ignoring the giant trillion dollar elephant in the room. Since no one on either side has the balls to do anything about one of those three issues, much less all three, we'll just all slowly die on the vine as we rack up payments on children in the 7th generation from now.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

This is all entertaining, except that both sides spend all their time quibbling over something like 15% of the budget.

You can raise taxes
You can cut military spending
You can cut or eliminate social security and/or medicare

Those are your options if you want to get even close to a balanced budget. Odds are you have to do all three at this point. Arguing over a few billion spent on some stupid pork program is ignoring the giant trillion dollar elephant in the room. Since no one on either side has the balls to do anything about one of those three issues, much less all three, we'll just all slowly die on the vine as we rack up payments on children in the 7th generation from now.

15 percent would be a good start for bringing things under control. I believe from what I've read that about 37 percent or so of what the feds spend, they don't take in as revenue. So, 15 percent is within shouting distance of half way there. But, that aside, I agree with your larger point.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Our elected representatives should not be in the business of deciding on taxes -- that should be the job of an ombudsman, who takes the amount Congress spends and sets the tax rates accordingly. Simple math.

It's unfortunate that it's not feasible to run income taxes the way we run property taxes, where it's possible to start with the levy and work backward to the rates, with property values determining the distribution of the taxation. I suppose that you could do a sort of a one-year lag, but there would need to be controls in place for requiring the budget to stay in balance over a fixed period. I guess that's probably what you're after with your ombudsman setting tax rates. I think something of the sort could be done by setting fixed multipliers for the brackets (indicating ratio to one another) and then letting the thing that multiplies into them float.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

For the life of me I dont get why people want prayer in school...it serves no purpose.

Students can pray for better grades or teachers.
Teachers can pray for better students.


As for the way people should kill themselves, whatever happened to carbon monoxide poisoning? Just tell them to start the car in the garage with the door closed and let nature take its course.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

START ratified 71-26, 9/11 responders bill passes by unanimous consent.

Woot. Keep on cuttin!

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

This is all entertaining, except that both sides spend all their time quibbling over something like 15% of the budget.

You can raise taxes
You can cut military spending
You can cut or eliminate social security and/or medicare

Those are your options if you want to get even close to a balanced budget. Odds are you have to do all three at this point. Arguing over a few billion spent on some stupid pork program is ignoring the giant trillion dollar elephant in the room. Since no one on either side has the balls to do anything about one of those three issues, much less all three, we'll just all slowly die on the vine as we rack up payments on children in the 7th generation from now.

You guys aren't thinking about this the right way...act like you were the government...if you wanted to 'prove' to people that you couldn't cut anything what would you do? You'd identify choices that you knew there would be resistance to, enough resistance to thwart attempts to enact those cuts. So, you'd make the dialog about the safety of the country, all of us dying cold and alone after eating our last can of dog food, children with no home or clothes...and then you'd sit back and chuckle.

They are employing the classic "hey, look over there" tactic. Works very well in most settings, whether it is budget cutting, auditors...whoever might be snooping around looking for something you don't want them to find.

So, is it really 1-2 big programs with staunch supporters that we need to cut? How about a 10% reduction in staff across every department and agency? Equally representing all levels in the org chart. You get the salary reduction, the benefits cost reduction, you need 10% less space etc. I submit that could be done with no impact whatsoever on services.

Would I think that is all that could be done? No way. But once we proved that it could be done, the next 10% is easier.

As long as they have us trying to decide if we want to be overrun by the terrorists or letting our parents/ourselves die in cold alley or eating and drinking while the least among us starve, they have us right where they want us...divided and inert.

Like I said, this isn't a new strategy, go to any large company with expense problems and you will find this tactic in play.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

You guys aren't thinking about this the right way...act like you were the government

As long as they have us trying to decide if we want to be overrun by the terrorists or letting our parents/ourselves die in cold alley or eating and drinking while the least among us starve, they have us right where they want us...divided and inert.

"We" are "they". The government is not an evil assemblage of Bond villains. It's the collective voice of us.

Bob comes closest when he says it may be a bad idea to trust the public to allocate expenditures wisely. This is true, but it's also the central dilemma of a democracy. The solution isn't to hide the details from the voters -- that's just turning away from democracy and back towards aristocracy. "Whatever the immediate gains and losses, the dangers to our safety arising from political suppression are always greater than the dangers to the safety resulting from political freedom. Suppression is always foolish. Freedom is always wise." -- Alexander Meiklejohn

The solution is to educate people so they can make smart decisions. Education here means critical analysis and logic, with some math and science thrown in so, for example, people don't just fall for any poll without asking the obvious questions about sampling, bias, etc. Education means a grounding in history, so people are aware that there are sociological factors like war fever and xenophobia that have repeated again and again through history, warping the public mind temporarily and causing them to forget their political ideals and follow some demagogue's promise of safety through repression.

While everybody will never be at that level of intellect and maturity, huge numbers of people already are: homeowners, parents, small business owners all have to practice every day the sort of logical tradeoffs, critical thinking, and long-term thinking required to run a government. And in fact those are the people who vote. People too lazy to think for themselves are often too lazy to get off the couch on election day (a reason to oppose vote by mail).

The Straussian idea of an inner circle that we could trust to make all the serious decisions failed miserably, both the liberal version during the run-up to the Vietnam War and then the conservative version during the run-up to the Iraq War. Cabals may be informed, may even be on the average smarter, but they suffer from groupthink, get weird really quick, and make terrible decisions. "The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy." -- Al Smith (NOT H. L. Menken, for god's sake -- talk about a bizarre misattribution)

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVIII : Now with 100% more Gov't sponsored starvation

Education is important to a point, and it's generally good for people to know what's going on and some level of factual information, but education is limited, as our modern society shows. We have more information available to us than ever, and efforts left and right to educate the public on all sorts of issues and situations. Yet, I'd argue our decision making is based more than ever on partisanship, petty politics, and personal agendas, regardless of what the facts show would tell an unbiased observer. Education can help, but I don't believe, regardless of how much education was undertaken, that the populace would become meaningfully more engaged and become more reasoned decisionmakers. Bottom line is for the most part they don't want to be. You give someone a choice of sitting at home and watching an NBA game or a recently released DVD, or going to a public meeting on government budgeting and such. The outcome is obvious and not encouraging. Really, there are plenty of ways for the public to educate itself on what the government does (though I'll agree that efforts could be made to make things more clear on what is spent where, etc.). But, the public, for the most part, would rather be entertained than educated.