The American Spectator

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.5.10 @ 6:33AM

It's a great idea, but the big spenders in Washington from both parties don't seem to realize the party is over.

steve seater| 3.9.10 @ 4:32PM

The Marxist Democrats are in control now and there will continue to be other costly spending initiatives. Only by jettisoning Obama and his socialist supporters in the next two elections can steps be taken to rectify this situation. I have never been politically active in all my 68 years, but I will do my utmost to defeat Obama and his communist friends in the upcoming elections. If we fail, America will be transformed into a socialist welfare state and third rate world power which is what the Alinskyite Obama wants. I pray that Americans will rise up against this detestable man and his supporters and remove them from the scene once and for all.

Roger| 3.5.10 @ 7:13AM

Great idea and I'm in, but really? If these clowns don't listen to the people on healthcare does anyone really think they'd help (en mass) by getting behind an amendment that essentially says, "Please stop me before I spend again."? I'm thinking not so much. It really does come down to electing people with good character and some basic understanding of how our economy has functioned for 200+ years. The latter quality seeming to be in shrinking supply for sure and the former is surely debateable. At least we do have a few who seem to get it.

Bram| 3.5.10 @ 7:35AM

Good idea - but I think Term Limits will accomplish the same thing with more fringe benefits.

Nexialist| 3.6.10 @ 12:22AM

Not term limits, just a pledge from every Congressman to vote for a rule prohibiting any member from holding a leadership position upon serving 12 years. It would take care of itself.

Faffnir| 3.6.10 @ 8:19PM

Most of the 535 fools on the hill need to be given a 9mm retirement plan. It might encourage the next lot.

martin j smith| 3.5.10 @ 7:37AM

What is needed is an economics lesson for the American People and this lesson should show footage of events occurring in Greece, Portugal and Spain. The American people may not understand Economic theory but they can understand civil unrest and disruption as depicted in news footage. Then you apply economic ideas to the situation and ask one question: Is this what you want for your family,your children,your grand children.?

lastrep| 3.5.10 @ 8:23AM

Why bother. The PAYGO legislation is being ignored less than a month after passage.

Melvin| 3.5.10 @ 8:34AM

This is what I feel fuels the Tea Party movement. The bureaucrats up there are mooning the taxpayer with a shit eating grins, "You can't touch us, because we make the rules and you don't."
We show up in Washington D.C. by the thousands and at the end of the day the bureaucrats are standing in their offices drinking their evening Martini's and smoking their cigars and commenting, "Look at the dumb asses, they actually really think that we answer to them. Hey the boys over at "K" Street, are offering up some free trips to the Caribbean wanta go?" "Nah, I promised Big Pharma that I would listened to them on a private flight to go skiing in Gstad this weekend."
"Hmmp, just look at them milling about with their placards and tea bags, sorriest mass of humanity I have ever seen."
"Stop, worrying about them, they're harmless, since when do we ever listen to them, and don't worry, Harry & Nancy will protect us."

BillW| 3.7.10 @ 7:53AM

Well said, we need to stop them dead in their tracks this Nov.
Then we turn our attentions on K street.

CalGirl| 3.5.10 @ 9:03AM

Great idea! If it falters in the Congress, then perhaps the tea party groups can encourage their states to call a Constitutional Convention.

Ken (Old TexicanVI)| 3.5.10 @ 9:31AM

W. James,
I understand some 36 States have legislation pending on "nullification" or 10th ammendment resolutions.
Could we somehow steer that thinking into a resolution for a constitutional convention?
...A pretty good base to build on.

BLACKWATCH| 3.5.10 @ 12:20PM

No. A CC would be a disaster. We could literally loose the bill of rights as it stands now. The Progressives would lie, steal, blackmail whatever it takes to hi-jack a CC and recreate it into a Progressive Utopia. The ammendment route is the way to go. It's safer.

COnservative Bob| 3.5.10 @ 8:57PM

Blackwater
I am not sure I agree. Check you constitution if we call an Article 5 convention it sets the terms under which any changes are made. Ratification requires 3/4 of the states.

The Progressives are a small minority.

Power resides in fly over country where we have the numbers.

Given that more than enough states have already called for a convention I suspect that you will find it is the progressives that are blocking it.

Google Article V Convention and see what you get.

Osamas Pajamas| 3.5.10 @ 11:14PM

I like the idea of a constitutional convention to clarify a few principles that the Demos ---and some Republicans, by the way --- would like to overlook. Here's the problem. The delegate pool for such a convention could be loaded to the gills with Demo fascists, socialists, and the usual other gargoyles --- and once convened --- who is to stop them from polluting the entire document with their bullshirt statism?

Conservative Bob| 3.6.10 @ 8:51AM

With 3/4 of the states being necessary for ratification, we will.

Congress and the Senate cannot, as it reads be the delegates.

This is by no means going to be easy. It will require hard work, vigilance and most of all persistance.
Consider how aggressively the progressives are concentrating power within the central government now in direct and open contravention of the constitution urgent action is required now to arrest and eventually reverse their insidious tyranny.
We are at that point where the grand designs of their patient instrumentalism are no longer obscure.
The tipping point is at hand and they are proceeding at a frantic pace to implement the vehicle that will seal their final victory. Cap and Tax, nationalization of the banking industry, and the ultimate tool of their control Obamacare any one of which, but particularly Obamacare will close the shackles on our liberty forever.
We must stop them now, by all legitimate means, through aggressive assertion of the 9th and 10th through the states, through the midterms and subsequent election removing from office any and all progressives whether Dem or Republican at every level and through forcing them back to within the limits of their constitutionally defined power.

Northern Rebel| 3.5.10 @ 9:31AM

In NY, we have an alternative to the two parties, which are pretty much the same in this state. We have the conservative party. Being a member means you can't vote in the primaries, but by the time it came to vote, the doddering old fool, McCain was a lock, so a true constitutional conservative doesn't have a voice in this state.

Being a registered conservative is symbolic at best, but at least I don't have to apologize for my party nominating a progressive liberal for President.

I applaud any politician that honors our constitution, no matter what letter comes after their name.

Bob| 3.5.10 @ 9:32AM

Again we see the idiocy of AmSpec bloggers in not recognizing the problem. Yes, I agree that we need to reduce spending. But 53% of the federal budget is entitlements, 20% is military, 10% is interest, and ALL of the rest is only 1/6th of the budget. What this means is that Social Security and Medicare and military spending will be the things that have to be cut. That means rationing in Medicare (Grandma will die), and raising the qualification age in Social Security and Medicare to about 73 years of age. It will also mean cutting military spending. How many of you will sign on to that?

Even though I'm an "older" American, I would sign on to it with my eyes open. Most of the tea party people are seniors -- do you really think they would support this if they knew their social security and Medicare would be cut?

So, guys, if you are going to blog and support an "idea" like this, you should also talk about the ramifications. If you are truly a fiscal conservative, you would support cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and the military. Are you a fiscal conservative or is the only reason you are a Republican is that you are a religious extremist?

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.5.10 @ 10:39AM

False set of choices, Bob.

Number one, I certainly can't live decently only on SS.
Conversely, I paid roughly the same amount into my plain vanilla New York Life whole life policy for forty years...and I can live quite nicely on the annuity option there starting next year. Almost a four to one better return than SS along with the life insurance and waive of premium.

I truly do not know how other insurance companies treat it, but with New York Life, that waive of premium from disability means NYL would have actually paid the premiums for me...and continued my savings and dividends uninterupted...and I would still have the very same annuity payments.

So, with some wind down interval that makes sense, lets hand SS over to the several splendid mutual insurance companies for the long haul.

Same with medicare! Medicare, (gubmint) forced NYL out of the seniors health insurance field, years ago.

Privatise! but require the premiums to acceptable life/health companies. Very simple to execute... IF
the polls would accept it.
Most average intelligent people would, if it were presented clearly and honestly.

Ryan| 3.5.10 @ 11:19AM

I don't know that you're going to hear a lot of arguments against targeted entitlement cuts and re-working of some entitlements.

For one, get rid of no-bid contracts in medicare, and required medicare coverage. There is a TON of markup on stuff they pay for. I don't think it would necessarily lead to rationing - but there may be some cases.

Second, privatize at least part of social security, and make it the responsibility of the consumer - not the government - to handle his or her own retirement affairs.

Third, there are likely needs to cutting some military spending - I always thought the F-22 Raptor cuts were probably what was needed, and some contractors and government employees need to be held accountable and/or dropped (I've seen both sides of the issue, and who knows how much the Boeing/Northrop war is costing us).

Conservatives never argue with dropping dead weight - I bet the elderly would agree.

Dai Alanye| 3.5.10 @ 11:27AM

Bob is an intelligent guy—I know this to be true because he's told us so himself on numerous occasions. But on political matters he thinks emotionally instead of logically.

Of course entitlements must be brought under control—this goes without saying. During the Presidential nomination contest Fred Thompson introduced an easy long-term fix for Social Security—indexing yearly increases to cost of living rather than wages. The effect would be felt only slowly but would eventually make a significant difference.

No doubt any Constitutional amendment would need to be put slowly into force in order to cause as little pain and confusion as possible. On this basis, the idea has great merit.

Amanda| 3.5.10 @ 3:08PM

We senior citizens have paid into the medicare
program since approximately 1965. We cannot
purchase private health insurance when we reach 65. We have to use Medicare. Perhaps we should change the system so people with money to pay should be able to purchase their own insurance after 65; those of us who still work after 65 could pay for coverage and receive a tax credit.
That would reduce some burden on Medicare.
Likewise with social security; we paid in to it.
Our corrupt government spent it on other things.
Reduce the terrible waste and boondoggle earmark system first....reduce corruption first.
One other comment.
Between 2000 and 2008 the govt. took in between 2.0 and 2.4 trillion annually. If we spent wisely we would not be in this mess.

Being responsible fiscally has nothing to do with
religion...altho, I am sure God would approve.

Amanda| 3.5.10 @ 3:08PM

We senior citizens have paid into the medicare
program since approximately 1965. We cannot
purchase private health insurance when we reach 65. We have to use Medicare. Perhaps we should change the system so people with money to pay should be able to purchase their own insurance after 65; those of us who still work after 65 could pay for coverage and receive a tax credit.
That would reduce some burden on Medicare.
Likewise with social security; we paid in to it.
Our corrupt government spent it on other things.
Reduce the terrible waste and boondoggle earmark system first....reduce corruption first.
One other comment.
Between 2000 and 2008 the govt. took in between 2.0 and 2.4 trillion annually. If we spent wisely we would not be in this mess.

Being responsible fiscally has nothing to do with
religion...altho, I am sure God would approve.

Ellis Wyatt| 3.5.10 @ 9:46AM

The last sentence says it all. If we can't adhere to the constitution we already have I give this little hope of doing anything. The answer will require people to make the hard decisions to return our government back to its original roles. Killing entitlement spending and the welfare state is the only real solution, but we have few that are willing to make those decisions.

Jon B| 3.7.10 @ 12:06PM

I agree. We can start with the $16 trillion entitlement/welfare program to the banks, and move along to and eliminate the $3 trillion corporate welfare program in Iraq. Take out the biggest welfare programs first, and enact a fair tax code as well.

Melvin| 3.5.10 @ 10:15AM

What we are want is basically the same thing, but depending where we are from, how we were raised, and our chosen profession as adults will give varying opinions in how we are to get to the solution.
The majority of those of us who post here I would wager are over 50 years old. We came from an age of self-reliance, hard work, and didn't see a need for allot of government in our lives.
If we somehow got sick from colds, flue and other minor maladies we took care of it ourselves to a trip to the garden of the corner drug store.
We didn't consume allot of the processed food we have nowadays so in-turn we were healthier.
Our thinking was based on common sense, and those who went to college retained that common sense but with a higher level of knowledge.
During our formative years I guess government obviously wasn't the behemoth it is today, but rational minds who governed under the rule of law still made most of the decisions that identified a problem such as World War Two that protrayed a major issue that had the propensity to effect every man, women, and child in this Country and the only solution to that problem was getting everyone on the same sheet of music, in which the government was successful because we defeated the enemy.
Damn, I know I am getting wordy but this is the only way I can explain it. The government has to stop playing whatever political games it is now playing and be completely honest with the American people to identify our economic plight as something that will effect every man, woman, and child as WWII did.
Will the medicine burn going down and leave a foul aftertaste damn right it will, but as with WWII every American drank from the same medicine bottle and therefore united in the solution.
I hope this makes sense, this Country cannot makes exceptions to one group of Americans and force another group to swallow the medicine all this will create is inequity and harbor resentment.
If a solution is to be found we all have to drink from the same medicine bottle.

Melvin| 3.5.10 @ 10:25AM

Now the thought that I really wanted to say pops into my head. As a nation, we have to fundamentally change in how we all view government in our lives,

Osamas Pajamas| 3.5.10 @ 11:10PM

Well, OK, but ditch the danged Kool-Aid.

Joe D.| 3.5.10 @ 10:26AM

It's about the 10th Amendment as well people. Kick them out, especially the leadership of the Democrats.

Northern Rebel| 3.5.10 @ 10:39AM

Bob:

It's painfully obvious that we do need to address entitlement spending. President Bush tried to do that when he proposed privitizing a small portion of social security, and was pilloried for it.

I am not a young man either, but I do recognize that we can't go on the way we have gone, and continue to be viable fiscally.

The real problem is that once someone gets elected to office, they are automatically considered an expert at whatever they open their mouths about.

Was George Bush a financial genius, when he gave us the largest entitlement since the great society?

NO.

It has to stop somewhere.

Senior citizens seem to not care because, "what the hell, by the time it crashes and burns, I'll be dead, anyway, so fuck everyone else!"

Young people are having too much fun being ignorant of the precarious situation our country is in financially, so anyone who raises the issue is a killjoy.

The price will be paid by someone.

BTW Bob, what is your definition of a religious extremist?

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.5.10 @ 10:42AM

Sorry folks,
This is really important, so I re-posted it here.

Old Texican)| 3.5.10 @ 10:39AM
False set of choices, Bob.

Number one, I certainly can't live decently only on SS.
Conversely, I paid roughly the same amount into my plain vanilla New York Life whole life policy for forty years...and I can live quite nicely on the annuity option there starting next year. Almost a four to one better return than SS along with the life insurance and waive of premium.

I truly do not know how other insurance companies treat it, but with New York Life, that waive of premium from disability means NYL would have actually paid the premiums for me...and continued my savings and dividends uninterupted...and I would still have the very same annuity payments.

So, with some wind down interval that makes sense, lets hand SS over to the several splendid mutual insurance companies for the long haul.

Same with medicare! Medicare, (gubmint) forced NYL out of the seniors health insurance field, years ago.

Privatise! but require the premiums to acceptable life/health companies. Very simple to execute... IF
the polls would accept it.
Most average intelligent people would, if it were presented clearly and honestly.

Bob| 3.5.10 @ 2:02PM

Ken, have you considered the law of unintended consequences? Both you and I have taken care of our retirement years outside of government help, but over half of the people in the U.S. don't have enough savings to even last one month if they lose their jobs -- and that includes their retirements. That's why this is not a false set of choices. U.S. residents want to live large and spend what they don't have. Our savings rates are disastrous. Our educations levels are declining and we are becoming less competitive. We cannot manufacture most things competitively and that's where the bulk of jobs for the middle class reside. Even when we have plants, rather than employing people, they use robots.

You once said you had some experience in insurance. I would ask you to talk to an actuary and see if they would predict the same growth in the next 40 years that we had in the last 40. If we don't, and you were 40 years younger, you wouldn't have any where near what you have now in real, non-inflated, dollars. In fact, over the past decade, you would have been better off investing in dividend paying companies than growth stocks.

By the way, the waiver of premium provisions today are no where near as lucrative as you had.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.5.10 @ 3:06PM

Bob,
You are Wrong again!

New York Life does precisely today what they have done over the last 150 years plus re... waive of premium consequences..
PS: You have claimed to be an actuary...multiple times here. Have you simply lied...again...or do you know how to do compound interest, or did you work for a slimy company?

IF>>>IF you had looked me up as "SL Toddard" has, you would know who I am.
Nevermind.

Ralph Novy| 3.6.10 @ 8:21PM

Bob:

1. Didn't really get your point about "unintended consequences."

2. "U.S. residents want to live large and spend what they don't have." Oh Yeah. Have a look at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....iew=screen

3. "Our educations levels are declining..." and yet so many self-styled "conservatives" think cutting back on educational spending makes long-term fiscal sense.

4. "Talk to an actuary." Absolutely. And probably absolutely terrifying. lol

5. Point about cost-of-living/quality-of life, 40 years ago versus now. Bingo. Big part of why I'm increasing "progressive" -- meaning, in no small part, in favor of re-instituting the aggressive "progressive" taxation system pre-1970.

6. "Growth stocks." Methinks you greatly euphemize. Didn't you perhaps mean "wildly reckless speculative instruments"?

At any rate, value your comments, Bob. They're pretty well informed and even-tempered -- in sharp contrast with ever so many others' here.

Ralph

jlrlee| 3.5.10 @ 10:56AM

I would add one provision to the amendment and that is that when congress does not adhere to the requirements of the amendment, congress is automatically adjourned, a new election must be held for all seats in the house and senate and incumbents cannot run for re-election.

NeilBJ| 3.5.10 @ 12:02PM

"Even without an amendment, it is a fiscal crisis that could have been averted by heeding the Constitution in the first place."

Exactly! Aside from the fact that Constitution for the most part is ignored -- in particular the 10th Amendment, except for certain selected cases, we don't need a Constitutional amendment to reign in spending.

What we need is to obey the Constitution as it exists. This includes a limited federal government, wherein the states are sovereign, and most importantly, a return to the gold standard as required by the Consitituion.

With a smaller federal government, its needs would be fewer, and with a gold standard, the ability to flood the economy with worthless fiat money would be thwarted.

Franklin| 3.5.10 @ 12:05PM

jlrlee, Good plan! Could we also add that the money to pay for it comes out of their pockets?

You know, if it's so dang important, let THEM pay for it.

Oldefarte| 3.5.10 @ 12:39PM

The 'Californification of the United States' be damned, try the GREECIFICATION OF THE US! California's austerity program has not even begun yet, while the economic/financial ramifications forced upon Greece for its historical socialistic spending is now coming into bloom. The SLA proposed 20% spending cap is not enough----what's needed are major/substansive budget-expense REDUCTIONS, possibly of the 15-25% variety. America waste taxpayer money upon foreign aid, welfare, the space program, farm aid and unnecessary hardware, and it is way past time that this drunken-sailor-spending-with-taxpayers'-credit-card STOPS, period!!!!!

mujalan| 3.5.10 @ 1:55PM

This is good news, but I fear that it will end up like the Bunning effort. We have a few good people like these, but the Republican establishment in general has no backbone to stand with them. This trio's efforts will likely get tossed under the bus by the GOP big shots when the Dems and their MSM pals start to protest.

astonerii| 3.5.10 @ 4:11PM

The only way a limited expense amendment would be valid is if it set a floor for military spending. 20% is too high. Our federal spending has been too high for way too long. It should start at 20% and automatically lower by .25% per year until it reaches just 14% at most and around 9% ideally. The government only has a few responsibilities, and right now, 2/3 of the money it spends is for things it is not authorized to spend for according to the constitution.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.5.10 @ 7:51PM

Astoneri, hi!
Screw you! I will waste money killing terrorists.
Heck, I have a personel budget for killing baby killlers.
I will burn a hundred cartridges killing those guys...or YOU guys.

Jon B| 3.8.10 @ 11:09PM

Obama's restoring of funds for pregnancy prevention measures in the world's poorest countries reduces abortions by 10's of millions in the next 8 years. Republicans have lied about the Mexico City Policy by falsely claiming it funds abortions, etc. It's been illegal for US $'s to fund abortions overseas since 1973, but we DO fund pregnancy prevention measures, emergency field birth kits, etc.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_wrld.htm

1993: Repeal of the funding ban: President Clinton felt that private, foreign organizations should be able to receive USAID funding for that part of their programs that involved pregnancy prevention, even though they used their funds raised elsewhere to finance abortions or to appeal for abortion reform. On 1993-JAN-22, his second day in office, he rescinded the executive order.

2001: Reinstatement of the funding ban: On 2001-JAN-22, during his first day in office, President George W. Bush reinstated the funding ban for family planning programs run by agencies that also provide abortion services out of their own funds. His rationale was somewhat confusing. He wrote to the U.S. Agency for International Development: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions or advocate or actively promote abortion, either here or abroad." But no such funds have ever been granted. Existing legislation prevents foreign grants from being used to fund abortions or provide abortion counseling.

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0126-05.htm

January 26, 2001: Family planning research groups, such as the Alan Guttmacher Institute, last year said that if US funding levels were restored to the $540 million (from $425 million), the following would happen: Nearly 12 million more couples in developing countries would gain access to modern methods of contraception.

There would be 4.3 million fewer unintended pregnancies, 1.5 million fewer unintended births, 500,000 fewer miscarriages; 2.2 million fewer abortions each year; 8,000 fewer deaths from unsafe abortions, 7,000 fewer deaths from other causes related to pregnancy and 92,000 fewer deaths of infants.

Ken, are you saying you want to Kill Republicans in Congress, and Mr Bush for increasing abortions by 24 million in 8 years in the world's poorest countries? Or is this a matter of your personal hypocrisy again?

Osamas Pajamas| 3.5.10 @ 11:07PM

The GOP has enough money and clout to destroy the Democrat party. Unfortunately, they are an uncertain trumpet, infected and infested with people who logically belong in the Democrat party. The conservatives and libertarians have the best ideas, and the GOP has the bucks......

vpemmer| 3.6.10 @ 12:32AM

Call me skeptical, but I think that limiting the feds to 20% of GDP guarantees that they'll take that much.

Mark| 3.6.10 @ 8:15AM

So how is this any better than a balanced budget amendment? I agree that limiting federal spending is the right way to go, but spending would necessarily be limited if we had a balanced budget amendment. Let Congress decide how much to spend but require whatever is spent is paid for by revenue.

Oldefarte| 3.6.10 @ 11:19AM

Mark, no offense, but you are INCORRECT! A balanced budget amendment only guarantees that it's BALANCED. If the government AT THIS PRESENT TIME balanced it's budget by RAISING TAXES, would that be acceptable? Government spending/expenses are TOO HIGH, and need to be substantially REDUCED. The waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer supplied [via taxes] funds is deplorable. A balanced budget is a noteworthy idea and accounting concept, BUT, before it is balanced, expenses of government need to be reduced or eliminated. Liberal Democrats [if forced by a balanced budget requirement] will naturally seek to raise taxes as a solution, since they do not want to have thier favored WELFARE program funding of many decades reduced/eliminated, since same's governmental manna provides a quid-pro-quo incentive for their indigent constituents to repay said Democrats back by re-voting them into office, so that the welfare stream can continue, all at taxpayer expense!!!!!

Ralph Novy| 3.6.10 @ 7:59PM

You know, Oldefarte, "Oldefarte" WOULD be clever if you actually knew how to spell -- or think -- or feel.

Since you don't, it simply means you're unhappy here. Fine. Git.

Margie| 3.6.10 @ 8:14PM

You git!

Oldefarte| 3.7.10 @ 10:45AM

Ralph Novy: First of all, GTH and GO FORNICATE [OR 'FEEL' IN YOUR VOCABLARY] YOURSELF [or maybe the proper English wording/spelling, according to your ignorance should be """""GIT"""""----okay GOOBER?]. As to 'think', from your several comments, it's obvious that your thought processes are similar to THE CHOSEN ONE and his Chicago Way, moronic goons, who are hustling this country to the toilet's edge. Again, Ralph, GO STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE [AND TWIST IT SIDEWAYS, OKAY]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 3.7.10 @ 10:48AM

Oh Ralph [Cramden, no doubt], 'Oldefarte' is based upon both the French and old English languages, dumbars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

martin j smith| 3.6.10 @ 10:19AM

I am thinking under the following assumption: The goal of the Democrat Party and BHO is to destroy this nation and its economy and then rebuild it into a wonderful utopia. Thru giant deficits,excessive demand for help and not enough rescources, high inflation and undemployment. All of these are the indriedients for civil unrest and disruption. See Greece !!!!!!!!!
Oh, and let me add, the ME generation attitude see California Student riots. We want this ?

Clinton Lovell| 3.6.10 @ 1:12PM

The SLA is like sexual abstinence - it sounds good to those who aren't sexually active, but are only a source of guilt for everyone else. The reality is that Congress is able to commit moral hazards and as long as Congress has the power to commit moral hazards this will not work - there will ALWAYS be a state of emergency.

A more workable solution would be to obtain a system of paying for government spending that would be relatively unlimited in nature. To achieve this outcome we would have to structure our economy so as to make all units of government exogenous to the economy and change over our current monetary policy of using fiat currency to one based upon securities that have a high level of value accretion built into their make-up. This will require that we also reform our capital markets and stop using taxation to finance government, but the reality is that taxation has already run out of gas, so we should at least be real about what in fact must come next. I love the idea of the SLA, but this is just another way of playing politics; it's putting a band-aid on an arterial bleeder and we all know it. A better solution would be to prevent the bleeding from occurring in the first place and that means we have to put an end to the way we spend, not the amounts we spend. Everything else is just polite conversation by groups of people seeking to contrive the circumstances that would allow one group or another in our society to gain an exclusive advantage over everyone else and at everyone else's exclusive risk and expense. What if there was a way where everyone had the same opportunity (not a guarantee of the same outcome) but the same opportunity? Would that be okay? Get rid of the communists, the socialists and the insiders and create true free-market capitalism and a system of fiscal accountability that actually works. This one sure as heck doesn't work and we all know it, so putting your finger in the dike and playing dumb about the consequences isn't going to work for long, now is it?

AndrewDover| 3.6.10 @ 3:57PM

Where was the growth in sending? Here are the numbers which tell the story of outlay growth exceeding GDP growth:

1999 - 2008 Actual Annual Rates of Growth in Outlays

8.5 % Defense
8.0 % Medicare
7.1 % Medicaid
6.4 % Non-Defense discretion
5.2 % --Nominal GDP--
5.0 % Social Security

Table 3-2. from http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108.....ml#1045449

Get it? We need to stop the top three spending increases, because you won't be able to raise taxes faster than GDP for an extended period.

Ralph Novy| 3.6.10 @ 7:53PM

No dearth of hair-brainedly simplistic ideas here, I see.

These three stooges come up with a "20% cap," eh?

I'd put odds that their next bright idea -- of course not concocted to keep themselves in office -- will be to cap Congressional IQs at 80.

John Navratil| 3.7.10 @ 9:23AM

"cap Congressional IQs at 80."

Great idea. It would raise the average I.Q. of both the public and private sectors.

Rmm| 3.7.10 @ 9:59AM

Why not have the Feds do what most of the States have been doing for years? A balanced budget by law, and putting an end to spending money that is not there. Every responsible adult operates this way to keep his ship afloat, why can't the adults in Washington, or is that asking too much?

Jon B| 3.7.10 @ 12:10PM

90% of the 2009 spending was either approved by Bush, or came from Bush policies/mistakes. about 1/2 the non mandatory spending now came from Bush policies, and mistakes. It's a misnomer to blame the next guy for the previous administrations catastrophic mistakes.

ahj| 3.8.10 @ 6:54AM

What a new world! charity is with you!

ahhjajr| 3.8.10 @ 6:55AM

charity is with you!

Jon B| 3.9.10 @ 12:17PM

....The national debt has grown from $7.3 trillion to $11.9 trillion over roughly the same period -- "a five-year increase equal to the nation's entire accumulation of debt from the presidencies of George Washington to Bill Clinton."

The $4.6 trillion is actually closer to equal spending from George Washington to GHW Bush. Clinton paid off $600 billion of the National debt, but by then the interest was so high that it still rose by $1.4 trillion.

And no comments on how Bush's spending and mistakes are still over 1/2 of this year's deficit spending either.

The article's intent is noble, it's back ground information is meant to deceive, however. To deceive is to lie.

wangsir| 4.19.10 @ 2:37AM

Free download AVI to iPad, convert kinds of videos to iPad for playing.