-
Tebows in Paradise
June 11, 2013 | 62 comments
-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
Political Hay
As Easy As A to Z
Republicans should be simple but specific about spending cuts.
In a classic YouTube moment, an incredulous Rep. Gerald Connolly (D-VA) recently grilled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about the growing federal budget deficit. How, the congressman inquired, could this red ink ever be contained without tax increases? Bernanke replied that, well, yes, it would be difficult but Congress could cut spending.
Connolly seemed perplexed. “Is there enough spending to be cut?” he asked. Now it was the Fed chairman’s turn to be incredulous as he shot back, “Of course.” But the freshman Democrat could perhaps be forgiven for being unable to contemplate spending reductions of this magnitude. It has been a while since Republicans, ostensibly members of the limited government party, last offered any.
In fact, Republicans have made only three serious attempts to cut federal spending in the postwar era: during the “Do Nothing” Congress of 1947-48; the Congress that came in with Ronald Reagan in 1981-82; and the Gingrich “Republican Revolution” Congress of 1995-96. Since Republicans are within striking distance of taking back one or both houses this year, it worth asking what spending a new GOP majority might try to cut.
The Gingrich Republicans gave clues as to what spending they would attack before Newt himself got anywhere near the speaker’s gavel. The first was procedural. Reps. Bill Zeliff (R-NH) and Rob Andrews (D-NJ) proposed the A to Z spending cuts plan in 1993, calling for a special session in which any member of Congress could propose a reduction in expenditures — even for entitlements — and get an up-or-down vote.
Reps. John Kasich (R-OH) and Tim Penny (D-MN) went a step further by offering an actual list of spending to cut. With the Democrats still firmly in control of Congress and the White House, they cobbled together more than 90 specific cuts that initially totaled $103 billion (subsequent compromises brought this figure down to $90 billion).
Penny-Kasich privatized and eliminated some federal programs while reforming others. It increased the federal civilian retirement age from 55 to 65 and deferred cost-of-living adjustments for military retirees younger than 62. It means-tested Medicare, cut foreign aid, canceled a grenade launcher, slashed 252,000 federal jobs, and increased the Davis-Bacon threshold from $2,000 to $100,000 so that its prevailing-wage requirements would balloon the costs of fewer federal contracts.
And Penny-Kasich also scared the hell out of the Clinton administration and the Democratic leadership, who pulled out all the stops to defeat it — even though all these cuts would have only reduced federal spending by 1 percent over five years. But the Penny-Kasich amendment nearly passed, losing the House by just 213 to 219. It helped give a Republican majority waiting to be born a blueprint for some of its future budget cuts.
Right now, Republicans do have a longer-term plan to seriously address federal spending in the form of Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) fiscal roadmap (although the GOP leadership hasn’t exactly embraced Ryan’s handiwork). But they don’t have anything quite like Penny-Kasich or A to Z to establish their initial credibility as an anti-spending party, something very much in doubt after the budget-busting Bush years.
If Republicans are looking for such a plan, they could do worse than borrow a new A to Z list of spending cuts proposed by Demian Brady of the National Taxpayers Union earlier this year. His objective: “cleaning up after the stimulus,” a $787 billion boondoggle that has yet to stimulate in any meaningful sense. Brady offers an alphabetical listing of the spending that could be cut under the rules envisioned by Zeliff and Andrews during the 1990s.
Some of the savings are small in the context of a $3.55 trillion federal budget: getting rid of $7 million in helium resources management, ending mohair subsidies to the tune of $8 million, and terminating $10 million in grants for local government anti-climate changes initiatives, for example. Others, like repealing the remaining stimulus and ending the TARP bailout program, are quite large cuts — and Brady’s plan was introduced before the new health care law passed.
Republicans may not have Democrats like Tim Penny to work with anymore on cutting spending. The current crop of Blue Dogs were largely neutered during the health care debate. Democrats such as Connolly appear to believe spending cuts are a mythical creature like the Loch Ness Monster.
But if the GOP is to retake the majority and do something more worthwhile than reenter the earmarks racket, the party would do well to discover new John Kasichs to offer specific spending reductions now rather than later. They should be able to tell the voters that when the federal budget is this massive, finding room to cut should be as easy as reciting the alphabet from A to Z.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (58) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/22/as-easy-as-a-to-z
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
FTM| 7.22.10 @ 6:56AM
This is easy...
Get the US out of the UN. To the best of my understanding the US pays 70% of the UNs annual operating budget. The Un is corrupt to the core. Get rid of the UN.
Get the US out od the US. Let 'em set up shop in a strip mall in Brussels.
Abilish the National endowment for the arts.
Abolish National Science foundation.
Defund or abolish anything to do with Global warming or climate change or whatever the fraudsters are calling that con job this week.
Get the US out of NATO. Why do we pay through the nost tp protect people that hate us and ridicule us at ever turn.
Get the US out of Japan and South Korea. See the above.
Withdraw all American troops from the middle east. Coupled with this withdrawl, don't allow any commerce or travel to or from the middle east. If these savages want to live in the seventh century, let them. The US gets most of it's oil from South America and Canada. Let the Europeans deal with these savages.
There are a lot of other expenditures that can be named. The ones above have got to amount to better than a trillion dollars a year.
Abolish the 35% federal income tax on businesses. This would stimulate a building boom to house the businesses. Next the businesses would relocate back to the US stimulating hiring and job creation. We'd be sending busses to Mexico to recruit guest workers pretty much taking care of the illegal immigration problem too. Not to mention the revenue generation from people gainfully employed versus waiting on their check from the government.
Outlaw federal employee labor unions.
Sponsor a constitutional amendment abolishing the congressional exemption from the idiotic laws that they pass. If retiring congress people have to make due on socialist security my guess is that they'd come up with a genuine bi-partisan plan to adequately fund socialist security, pronto.
I'm outta time, bye.
JimH| 7.22.10 @ 8:39AM
This is all an excellent start. But the real money is to be found in entitlements. Social Security must be reworked so that younger workers are contributing to their own savings. Medicare/Medicaid can't be eliminated in this environment, but could be restructered. Eliminate all farm and industrial subsidies, government loans and grants, Institute a flat tax and eliminate any sweetheart special deductions. These are just a few more suggestions.
crookedwren| 7.22.10 @ 9:17AM
Ditto on kicking the UN out of NYC and the US.
Len| 7.22.10 @ 10:02AM
Let's not forget corporate subsidies, but most importantly end the federal reserve. The unconstitutional fiat money that the federal government forces on us is a hidden tax and enables the federal government to "fund" it's continual overreach.
axbucxdu| 7.23.10 @ 9:59PM
Len| 7.22.10 @ 10:02AM wrote: "...but most importantly end the federal reserve. The unconstitutional fiat money that the federal government forces on us is a hidden tax and enables the federal government to "fund" it's continual overreach."
This is THE source of the problem. If an individual had the power to legally create money from "thin air" as does the Fed, would it really be a surprise if that power was abused?
Now endow an unaccountable quasi-government organization with this authority and a century later the results are exactly what Jefferson predicted.
The only problem is that the indebted public is largely in on the deal, so expect more of the same to continue after November.
But eliminate the Fed, and sorting our budget would be so simple a caveman could do it.
PJ| 7.25.10 @ 2:32PM
The Fed is NOT responsible for the $4 trillion Federal budget, the Congress is. It's sad to see such fiscal ignorance passed off as wisdom. The Fed is not "The" source of the problem, not even close.
Consider that California has no Federal reserve to print its money, but they still have a mess of a budget and over-spending galore.
IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID - spending is passed by legislators. Fire the big spenders.
axbucxdu| 7.25.10 @ 9:57PM
"Under every stone lurks a politician." Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae, 410 B.C.
Wisdom? It'd be nice if you'd demonstrate some. You're the fool, pal, really. You expect something that is not and never was, the pol that doesn't spend. They have to be caged by the taxpayer, dummy. The Fed lets them out.
BTW, if you haven't heard, Kaliphoney has lately resorted to printing IOUs. And why the hell not, why let the USG/Fed have all the fun?
Do crack a book, there BJ, preferably one from the Austrian School.
GB| 7.22.10 @ 10:41AM
Regarding entitlements, Social Security as welfare should end. Only pay those who contribute to the plan and pay them based on what they contibute. The Federal Gov. should completely get out of the Health business and allow market forces to control the system. Other savings, eliminate the education department and all of it's funding. Eliminate HUD, eliminate the dept. of education. There is more but this would save lots of money. If States want to have these programs let them vote them in. Also, one spending increase would be the defense dept. after puilling all troops from Europe and Korea.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.22.10 @ 11:49AM
FTM,
cogent comment.
I can go with Rep Ryan's plan...combined with Jim DeMint's ideas over in the Senate.
...think "politically possible" instead of a "wish-list".
Repubs dare not become the "Scrooge" the communists, (pardon the shorthand), will paint.
Nope. We gotta go positive to the earners...and would-be earners in our nation.
ie:"You have been robbed...of your money...and your basic freedoms....want 'em back?"
Blackwatch| 7.22.10 @ 7:20PM
We need a test case to prove that the government can be run better and cheaper. My candidate is the Post Office. They are billions in the red this year and have a huge legacy cost in benefits.
Turn over the management responsibility of USPS to a competant corporation. Let them revise the union contracts and increase efficiency adn service. Customer service & the Post office don't usually go well in the same sentence. The post office is one of the last monopolies in the world. Time to get it into the 21st century. Close some of the 36,000 dinosaur locations and let someone like Walmart or Target lease space for new postal hubs. Bring in new financial products/services to offer to increase their bottom line. End the wasteful Saturday delivery. You really need to get your bills on Saturday? Let them lower their costs and increase efficiency to attract their bread and butter customers (direct mail) back. We all groan about junk mail but that is their cash cow. The upward spiraling cost of direct mailings is matched by the downward spiral in the number of pieces mailed.
The USPS is in a government induced death spiral and we all know it.
The Post Office is not a sacred cow like Social Security. Transform the USPS as a test case to prove our credibility about how smart and efficient our goverment can be.
Richard Bendure| 7.22.10 @ 5:42PM
Why don't you proof your comments. there are so many typos (or you don't know how to spell) that it's difficult to figure out what you are saying.
blackwatch| 7.22.10 @ 7:06PM
I for one tend to forgive spelling and punctuation errors unless they are so egregious that my brain boils.
Perhaps the gentlemen in question does not have a spell check system? Or he writes the way he speaks? It's a dialect. Or he is writting with a pen on a tablet computer. I do that frequently and the damn pen writer SW is not as good as it should be.
Lastly, don't you know that you should not mess with Texas?
Hook'em horns!
Barton Hills Elementary School Alumni--2nd & 3rd grade (1972-1973)
Jack| 7.22.10 @ 10:49PM
If that is the only comment you have to make you should quit being so anal. It is the content! A lot of great ideas!
FTM| 7.22.10 @ 11:56PM
Yeah, typing under the gun. On top of that I got big fingers and an itty-bitty keyboard. Usually when I have time to type coherently and proof what I type before I hit the "submit" button things go a lot better.
Hershl| 7.22.10 @ 8:13AM
Hedge fund manager suggests - short Obama.
Why not? Send a message with your dollars.
http://jewishdailyreport.wordp.....ama-china/
dw| 7.22.10 @ 8:39AM
-Reduce all foriegn aid across the board by at least 10%
-Reduce UN support by at least 40%
-Reduce all entitlement spending by at least 10%
-Require balanced budgets
-Enforce pay as you go
-Legislate absolute maximime tax cap on all citizens at 20% from all state and federal entities
(they must no longer have an open check book wih no limitations... see obama)
-Remind all politicians they work for us
And recognize a socialist before you elect him POTUS
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.22.10 @ 8:47AM
All good ideas, but the only one here of significance is the flat tax. It would get everyone back on the tax rolls; most significantly removing the "endowment" mentality from the candidates base. In this way people would vote fro those candidates that actually lowered taxes.
Ms Jones| 7.22.10 @ 3:33PM
I like the idea of a flat tax--and the elimination of "credits" and "deductions", which is a means of wealth redistribution and the antithesis of "equal protection" under the law. Why should someone pay less because they choose to have more kids? Why should a married person pay more than a single one? Why should a homeowner get a break that someone who rents does not? By the way, I am a homeowner and a parent, so I am not disparaging either group. The tax code seems to be one way politicians reward one group over another. I recall a candidate of several years ago holding up a post card that read "Write your annual earnings here _______ Multiply by .10. Subtract the amount of taxes already withheld. If it's a positive amount, write a check. If negative, this is your refund. " No one should need to hire an accountant to fill out an income tax form.
George S| 7.22.10 @ 9:08AM
Then how is it the class of '94 Republicans -- within ten years -- spent like drunken liberals after they were elected by their commitment their Contract with America? Simple... once in power they realized that the average American only listens during the election cycle -- but the special interest lobby pumps money year round. They soon found that soliciting individual contributions is a chore compared with the ease the pocket liners of K Street fill their campaign coffers in exchange to keep things like sugar and ethanol subsidies tormenting the taxpayer.
It's one thing to draw up a laundry list of what to cut. It's quite another to read that list on the campaign trail. Sure, everyone wants spending cut except, of course, the folks of Iowa who depend on ethanol. And the unemployed, who depend on the check. And the retired, and the public employee, and the college student, and the....
It matters not who wins but how much they want to stay in power. That's the crux of our problems. My Country or My Career should be the first question answered at town hall meetings by candidates.
crookedwren| 7.22.10 @ 9:20AM
Look at what Harry Reid is doing to Sharron Angle in Nevada.
We can't just turn the taps off on Social Security. People now living on it have paid into it all their working lives. But we can create an environment and an interim plan to wean our children away from Big Govt.
DonDuke | 7.22.10 @ 9:11AM
Good thoughts all Mr. Antle, good thoughts indeed. I agree that the republicans must delineate their thought on cuts. It is so remarkable that politicians today, of both stripes, seem to have forgotten the the federal government has never generated one dollar of GDP. It is our money gained from taxes. Their "revenues" are our loss of income. To come to think of it, this is probably a concept that many citizens have lost track of.
I agree with the flat tax concept but think that it is such a lofty idea and one that would require such a "shake up" in the country that it is out of reach. But then again, look what Premiere Comrade Obama did with Health Care..............
Pat Fields | 7.22.10 @ 9:48AM
The only thing the Republicans can do is to promise or pretend to reduce expenditures. Neither Party is capable of stopping the Mawrhat is the 'money machine'.
When this paper 'money' system was created it issued cash at interest that, because of compounding, first consumed circulating gold by 1932 and then circulsting silver by 1961.
When in 1971 that mechanism threatened to empty the Treasury as well, Nixon said no and from that point forward there has been a reciprocal creation of 'money' and interest that cannot be escaped without reverting back to a specie system based on the depreciated real purchasing value of all banknotes.
In the case of the US, that means swapping all banknotes for 10 gram copper pieces.
That isn't likely to happen, so this virtual 'money' will continue to generate compounding interest that in turn generates more 'money' ad infinitum, until we're all crushed by exponentially exploding interest service and monetary inflation.
buckeyeman| 7.22.10 @ 11:06AM
You must all be smoking crack! Absolutely nothing will be accomplished by the Republicrats. They simply don't believe in smaller government. The growth of government is irreversible, like cancer, and will only stop when it kills the host. I didn't see one Repub. stand up and state simply and clearly that it is not the legitimate role of the government to steal my money and redistribute it to some poor soul who is unemployed. They tripped over each other to agree that the unemployment payments should be continued (why have any time limitation at all?) but that it should be "paid for". We are all lost.
Ms Jones| 7.22.10 @ 3:42PM
I agree! Once elected, a Republican is virtually indistinguishable from a Democrat. That is why, this year, I am urging all my conservative/libertarian/Tea Party correspondents to seriously consider third-party candidates. The old saw that voting for an independent only assures the election of a Democrat was true in the past, but I honestly believe that there is an anti-incumbent, anti-status quo fervor that is sweeping America, making the Independent and Libertarian candidates viable. I presume from your handle that you are an Ohioan, so you probably know first hand the kind of "deals" the parties make before the voters get to make a choice in the primaries: "If you let X run for Secretary of State, we will back you for Attorney General", etc.
pj| 7.25.10 @ 2:44PM
"a Republican is virtually indistinguishable from a Democrat. " - Proven false.
Third party candidates like you espouse have been a LIFESAVER to the worse liberal Democrat miscreants in office. I have seen numerous Democrats win with under 50% of the vote thanks to 3rd party candidates splitting the conservative vote. Such a strategy backfires and destroys what hope we have left of stopping turning us into an ObamaNation.
FTM| 7.23.10 @ 12:02AM
I agree with Buckeyeman.
Vinny| 7.22.10 @ 11:19AM
Maybe the Republicans and the Conservative should get as specific as say the Democrats? Why does the right have to lead the way or justify their positions at every turn and the Dem's skate with half baked nothing answers and that's OK?.
rdman| 7.22.10 @ 12:29PM
The Insecure Career Republican in Profile
With very few exceptions, the career republican fears if they act too aggressively, they may jeopardize their relationship with the “Authority” (regardless of who the Authority is… the democratic majority, the administration, Pelosi, Reid, et al), and will suffer serious punishment as a result. Although they may not have actually run afoul of the Authority, they fear that they have. As a result, they become prey to intense anxiety, seeking reassurances that, no matter what they have done in the past, their relationship with the Authority is still intact, revealing a frightened, insecure, spineless person beneath the facade of the tough authoritarian.
Career republicans who exhibited blustering toughness during election cycles, even projecting that they no longer needed the Authority, once elected and seated now shift abruptly. Almost tearful and obsequious, they become frustrated and disgusted with themselves for not being tough enough to stand on their own two feet to defend themselves, to be independent, to stand on their principles. They feel cowardly because they have not had the spine to sustain their blustering toughness.
Career republicans become ineffective because their self-disparagement and insecurity creates intense feelings of inferiority and worthlessness. Their indecision and evasiveness has now deteriorated into massive insecurity and anxiety, convincing them that they are incompetent and unable to do anything effective on their own. They can only marginally function by “morbid clinging” dependency on the Authority, or, if the original Authority has moved on or rejected them, then on some new Authority.
The longer career republicans remain seated, the more worthless they become, whining and complaining and disparaging themselves to the extent that they weaken whatever remaining influence they have, becoming an emotional drain on their constituents and everyone else around them. Their despondency has the uncanny ability to induce their anxieties and negativity into others, virtually forcing their constituents to make other choices in their voting booths.
Michael L. Hauschild| 7.22.10 @ 12:52PM
All those "career" republicans you allude to were part of an eleven per cent (11%) Congressional approval rating as of today. They can run but they cannot hide, even some of Bachman's "tea party caucus” is sitting on the fence instead of climbing on the bandwagon, a few of them do not even have the intestinal fortitude to sign the “contract.”
Siegfried X| 7.22.10 @ 1:39PM
Actually, those Republicans never planned to be tough, and most of them never promised it. They are simply lawyers arguing their case, people with no strategy or goals, but simply playing political tactics like spin and momentum to win more elections.
This is easily seen by the fact that the Republicans have no real platform. Citizens end up projecting their own beliefs on the Republicans, pretending that once elected they will act like conservatives or libertarians, but most Republican politicians have no intention of doing that, and haven't promised it.
A social conservative voter can assume that Republicans will be socially conservative, but without promises and a way of enforcing them, that is just wishful thinking. It's fun sometimes to dream up an imaginary Republican Party which is actively conservative, but that is just imagination.
Ms. Jones| 7.22.10 @ 3:45PM
That is why this year third party candidates, like Independents and Libertarians, truly have a viable chance! It makes me sick to see Republicans, with their blow-dried hair, spray on tans and pinkie rings, smugly assuming that the anti-incumbent, anti-Obama sentiment sweeping the land will somehow benefit themselves. Let's prove them wrong!!!
Kerry Marvin| 7.22.10 @ 12:47PM
Get rid of all incompetent incumbents and their media pundit’s too.
This would enable, the Impeachment of those whom are responsible, For the Unconstitutional Mandates and Rampant raft and Corruption such as Fannie and Freddie, and the FED! Nuff Said?
2010! Never Again! 2012! With Resolve!
Problem, Solved!
Siegfried X| 7.22.10 @ 1:16PM
Unfortunately, except in a few extreme cases, specific spending cuts are a political loser. For the Republicans to name specific cuts now would be handing the election to the Democrats.
In a democratic republic, ultimately the government cannot force the public to go where it doesn't want to, and the sad reality is that most people would rather just "add it to the deficit" rather than cut anything.
This doesn't mean spending cuts are impossible, but we need to do a lot of hard work to get there. Be ready to replace the programs with market-based solutions; build the case with the general public in advance; consider techniques like matching spending cuts with tax cuts saying that we need the former to pay for the latter.
What won't work though is lazily sitting back and calling every politician who doesn't cut spending "bad". Sloth rarely gets anything done. Rather accomplishments come from hard work.
Siegfried X| 7.22.10 @ 1:22PM
As American Spectator has pointed out recently, we need action from conservative think tanks in order to get things done. President Reagan had that, with Supply Side, the Laffer Curve, and all kinds of market-based solution ala Jack Kemp.
But today's Republican politicians, the ones who are trying to retake Congress seem to have no plans at all. They are just tactical political mechanics who hope to ride backlash and spin into power, without any clue what to do once they get there.
hardcard| 7.22.10 @ 2:08PM
let's make the rino extinct soon
Oldefarte| 7.22.10 @ 2:12PM
Cutting spending is really quite simple.....it just takes a PRESIDENT and congresspersons with the political GUTS to accompolish same [ever heard of Chris Christie????]. The initial responsibility comes from the American voters who must elect political representatives that pledge to represent them/their voters and to begin the process of budget deficit reduction once elected. Finally, such a President and Congress simply must do what PRIVATE INDUSTRY BUSINESSES do each and every day, when necessary, and that is to make tough decisions on spending cuts and hold their subordinates RESPONSIBLE FOR CARRYING OUT SUCH DECISIONS. In the PUBLIC INDUSTRY/GOVERNMENT, this would mean governmental cabinet secretaries, at the direction of the President, informing their underlings to make [dollar or percentage] cuts in their departments, and if they do not do as directed/commanded, they should simply be FIRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Siegfried X| 7.22.10 @ 2:21PM
"The initial responsibility comes from the American voters who must elect political representatives that pledge to represent them/their voters and to begin the process of budget deficit reduction once elected."
Well, that's the problem. The voters are not nearly ready to do that. So how do we get there? It would take a lot of hard work, if it's possible at all.
Asking Grandma to take a cut in her social security check? Cutting Veteran's benefits? Cutting Grandma's medicare? These are very tough cuts, but that is where all the budget money is, not in "bridges to nowhere".
Oldefarte| 7.22.10 @ 4:24PM
WRONG, typically [Asking Grandma to take a cut in her social security check? Cutting Veteran's benefits? Cutting Grandma's medicare? These are very tough cuts, but that is where all the budget money is, not in "bridges to nowhere] ! You begin by cutting GOVERNMENTAL WELFARE 'SOCIAL ASSISTANCE' PROGRAMS....aid to this, that and everything else [ie COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMS]. You don't cut SS that every recipient of which has ''''''EARNED''''' same. You cut foreign aid/welfare going to countries for the sole purpose of attempting to get them to LIKE US, when in fact they take our money and run [sometimes giving to their local terrorists organizations]. Your argument is typical of radical-liberals that attempt to scare people about governmental cutbacks, saying that they will reduce policemen, firemen, SS, etc; so stop the BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tom_Beebe| 7.22.10 @ 2:28PM
Since entitlements are breaking the bank, they must be first on the cut list. But how; I'm on Social Security and Medicare myself. the answer is no less than a cultural shift from "borrow to buy" to "save to buy", whch would include saving for retirement and health care, to mention two. Had I the foresight when younger to adopt saving, I wouldn't need these entitlements. So government policy must be fashioned to reeducate coming generations to that point of view. My suggestion in a tax plan to follow shortly.
Oldefarte| 7.22.10 @ 4:32PM
No, entitlements ie SS are not 'breaking the bank'; and only need to be tweeked. The real problem is the welfare, social maintenance payments to indigents that serve no purpose, are wasteful, and do not solve the problems of their direction. If welfare was reduced to only those truly in need, the resultant effect would be a twofor; since the unneedy weened off governmental assistance would be forced to work menial paying jobs now performed by illegal immigrants [who in turn would be forced to go back to Mexico]. This country needs to stop paying people to sit on their rear ends while receiving governmental welfare; and to begin working for a living!!!!!
Tom_Beebe| 7.22.10 @ 2:30PM
1. All persons residing in the U.S. shall come together in units for the purpose of reporting all income from any source, each item to be identified by payer's and payee's tax number. Members of a unit need not be related, need not reside together, and a unit may consist of as few as one person. With equality as the primary goal, this act established units to be taxed, so that all persons, whether related or not, legally here or not, are taxed equally.
2. Each year congress shall set by legislation a "minimum wage" and a "tax rate".
3. The following income shall not be subject to taxation:
• An amount equal to a year's earnings at the minimum wage rate, for each adult (age 20-65) member of the unit, decreasing 10% per year to 50% at age 15 and increasing 10% per year to 150% at age 70. (Family of two adults and two young children would receive exemptions equaling 100% + 100% + 50% + 50% = 300% minimum wage, currently about $42,000)
• All payments for what is classified as necessary health care for all members of the unit including medical care, any pharmaceuticals prescribed by a recognized health care professional, vision and hearing aids, and membership fees for health-enhancing entities such as gyms or other exercise facilities. Health care insurance premiums may be deducted but not health care expense paid for by such insurance.
• All educational expenses including day care for young children or legally incompetent persons, that portion of state and local taxes identified as spent on education, that portion of parochial school tuition, fees and other expenses identified as going for non-sectarian education, tuition, fees and educational materials for private school education at any level, and a per-diem allowance for students traveling more than 50 miles from primary residence for education.
• All income saved into an identified account from which investments may be made.
This encourages growth of the tax base, thus growth of the government's ability to pay for its responsibilities, by fostering health care, education and investment, all of which contribute to growth of income, taxable to support legitimate government purposes.
4. The "tax rate" shall be applied to any income over and above the deductions listed above, regardless of amount. It seeks the elusive concept of fairness by taxing at the same rate all "disposable" income.
5. There shall be no federal tax on corporations or other business entities. Products made in the USA will be more competitive in the world market by eliminating taxes as part of their cost All taxes will be directly, and transparently imposed on those who have always paid them, the consumer.
6. The Office of Management and Budget shall compute revenues to be expected using the newly set tax rate and minimum wage, applied to the previous year's reported incomes. No expenses in excess of that amount may be authorized or made by the federal government without approval by 75% of each house of Congress. It sets the Federal budget to produce a surplus in times of economic expansion and a deficit in times of contraction to promote economic stability.
7. At the request, by legislation duly enacted by a municipality having greater than 100,000 inhabitants or a state, a surtax may be imposed on citizens of that municipality or state which shall be applied in a manner exactly as applied for the Federal tax. It recognizes disparity in cost of living among various locations. It facilitates sufficient sources of revenue for states and municipalities.
8. For units whose deductions exceed total income, the Federal Government shall make payment equal to the tax rate multiplied by the shortfall in income, as shall municipalities and states. This addresses aid to the truly needy.
I would expect a tax rate in the neighborhood of 35-40%. Consider how it would affect your behavior, motivating you to save for retirement, and how it would, by exempting from this high rate, encourage spending on health care and education.
Your suggestions sincerely requested. E-mail them to tbeebe6535@yahoo.com.
glenny| 7.22.10 @ 3:02PM
If the 'Pubs had any brains, the 1st thing they'd do is promise : NO MORE EARMARKS !!!!!! glenny
Siegfried X| 7.22.10 @ 3:20PM
By the way, the House Republicans _DO_ have a specific spending cut plan. Rep. Paul Ryan, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee released it today. It doesn't have the full support of leadership, but there is a plan.
Al Adab| 7.22.10 @ 3:22PM
Non-germain riders
earmarks
OSHA
Dept of ED
EPA
HHS
I believe the list following 1994's Contract had about 1500 agencies and departments targeted. The Rep. congress lost it's spine when Clinton "shut down the Gov." and they got blamed. All for trying to get the budget under control which eventually, the GOP congress forced on Clinton. He gets the credit, but it worked.
Time again to get out the list and get to work.
Siegfried X| 7.22.10 @ 3:32PM
Republican House leader Boehner said in an interview today that he is proud of passing the socialist No Child Left Behind act with Ted Kennedy, and he looks for more bipartisanship in the future. Since he would be Speaker if Republicans win in November, it is safe to say that the 1995 Republican idea is long gone.
His agenda included repealing ObamaCare, but keeping taxes and everything else status quo.
Siegfried X| 7.22.10 @ 3:32PM
I meant to say, the 1995 Republican idea of eliminating the Department of Education is long gone, dead & buried.
Al Adab| 7.22.10 @ 8:22PM
Let's add McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold to the list as well.
Dept of Ed is long in need of elimination. Whatever are we thinking that the Federal Government ( under what enumerated power) has the right to oversee State and local operations?
Oh yeah! Pass the enumerated powers act first thing.
Ms. Jones| 7.22.10 @ 3:48PM
Who do you think I was thinking of when I mentioned smug Republicans with their blow-dried hair, spray on tans and pinkie rings? Who gave these guys the idea that "bipartisanship" is a virtue when the Marxists are in power?
boomerbabe| 7.22.10 @ 11:44PM
Boehner might be 'planning' to be the House Speaker, but that doesn't mean it is going to be his post. WE can hope that some of the freshmen we elect will not vote for him, but for someone like Rep. Ryan who actually has a well-thought out plan to reduce our debt & tax ratio. Boehner has been in Congress too long - he's caught the Grahamnesty virus, like a lot of the long termers.
rdman| 7.22.10 @ 4:21PM
The Exploitative Opportunist Democrat in Profile
Failure is one of the most humiliating prospects for democrats. If they continue to overextend themselves and cannot make good on their claims, they will attempt to maintain their inflated self-esteem by exploiting others.
As democrats see it, exploitation is necessary to continue to project a superior self-image. Ironically, they have become superior not only to everyone else, but also to themselves by overshooting the limits of their talents. Either they must come down to earth and recognize their limitations, or they must take what they need from others to maintain their superiority.
Their fear of failure, and thus of humiliation, makes democrats more than willing to be dishonest to get what they need to maintain at least the illusion of superiority. They are pragmatists and have no principles other than what works for them… the consequences: they lie on about their policies, take credit for the work of others, or plagiarize to make themselves seem more outstanding than they are. Democrats are determined not to be losers, no matter who must pay the price for their corruption.
They are ready to sell out, lie, change their loyalties, or take advantage of others to come out on top. Because they have never developed a conscience, they do not feel guilty about exploiting others. In colloquial terms, democrats are hustlers, people "on the make," opportunists taking advantage of situations and crisis’… always to the detriment of others. Their lack of affect is also particularly valuable now… they can callously use people without the slightest thought for their welfare… "What's in it for me? How can I use this for myself?"
Weak-kneed republicans, who may sometimes be aware of the democrat’s opportunism, are usually afraid of confronting them. Democrats count on the fact that others dare not say or do anything about their behavior for fear of retaliation. Their lack of decency makes it difficult for others to defend themselves against democrats because they know that democrats will go lower than they are willing to descend into the gutter.
Exploiting people reveals the contempt in which democrats hold others. Because they do not see other people as real or as having value without reference to themselves, using people is not a moral problem for them… because they have no morals. Others are merely providers of attention and admiration, as objects to be used to aggrandize themselves. This is why there is absolutely nothing reciprocal about a relationship with democrats. They will keep a relationship going as long as they get what they want, but will drop the “suckers” under the bus without a second thought, particularly if someone more desirable comes along.
Yet why are citizen voters so often taken advantage of by democrats? The answer lies in the strength of the narcissistic desires democrats awaken in citizen voters. Voters unwittingly give democrats power over them to the degree that they lack true self-esteem themselves. They mistakenly think that democrats will somehow endow them with what appears to be their limitless self-esteem. This never happens… the sad fact is that democrats would have no power over others if people did not give it to them.
Unfortunately for anxious, insecure republicans, democrats remain highly functional. Democrats do not become depressed, anxious, emotionally conflicted, incapacitated, or self-destructive. On the contrary, they depress others, make others feel anxious and conflicted, incapacitate others, and drive others to self-destructive acts. It is always others who suffer. Democrats are able to walk away from relationships as if nothing has happened, and as far as they are concerned, nothing has.
Like sharks, they are extraordinarily well adapted to their environment. And like sharks, they injure and kill cold-bloodedly, and keep moving.
RDN in Houston| 7.22.10 @ 4:51PM
Some of the cuts mentioned are a good start but we can't continue to take two steps back while the spenders take three forward as we are approaching the cliff. We are fast approaching the point of collapse and the current level of spending is not sustainable. Either we make sharp, rational cuts now or we are forced into a malstrom that leads to economic collapse. One way or another, combined government spending (local, state and federal) must be cut to a level under 20% of GDP and held there otherwise the game is over. The current government spending level crowds out private investment and acts as a disincentive to investment. Federal spending alone is headed for 25% of GDP under the current statist left regime.
Regulations must be also be cut sharply as they are essentially a hidden tax on the economy. Also, no one mentioned the stiffling effect of the minimum wage, another mindless regulation.
Sharp cuts and bold action are required. Half measures are a guaranteed recipe for failure.
Adam| 7.22.10 @ 6:26PM
Term limits will also help
rdman| 7.22.10 @ 6:40PM
As Easy as A to Z
The Only Solution… Constitutionalism & Federalism
Its time to stand up, find these career-politician tyrants in gross violation of their Constitutional Oaths and purge them from the halls of our government.
Eliminate the Washington DC snake pit of entrenched appeasing, expedient, placating and crab-walking despots by voting these delusional, parasitic, megalomaniac realpolitiks out our government… they are not worthy to represent We, The People of this magnificent Country. They are, in fact, a scourge upon the land.
1. Establish term limits by organizing States to convene State’s Conventions for the sole purpose to modify Article I, Section 2, Section 3, Amendment XVII and any other pertinent parts of the Constitution to read: “Citizen Representatives will serve a maximum of two terms in the Senate and three terms in the House. Ex-incumbents may run again after two terms have transpired.”
2. Reject all career-politicians running for re-election. They have become corrupt and no longer fit for Leadership or Statesmanship.
3. Recruit and elect true representatives of We, the People… Citizen Representatives who demonstrate strict compliance to the Constitution and Federalism in every respect. Citizen Representatives whose attributes include excellence in management performance, integrity, patriotism, pride and optimism, chivalry and civility.
4. Institute strict compliance and governance to Amendment X… the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.
On another thread, several posters claimed that term limits would be counter productive assuming that the American voters would vote in the same kind of politician (94% of the congress are leftist lawyers and career bureaucrats) that now pollute the halls of our government… NOT!!! Read the criteria above.
The United States government needs an overwhelming dose of what the eminent industrial engineer, Dr. W. Edwards Deming taught the Japanese industrialists during the 1950s-60s… in short, how, for example, to build a Toyota that was twice the car of a Chevrolet for half the cost (not withstanding the current fraudulent attack on Toyota... if you can’t compete, then attempt to destroy the competition).
The timeless Deming methodologies have various titles… during my engineering career, we called it Optimization Engineering. In the corporate world, it was called Total Quality Management (TQM). Those of us who practiced these principles witnessed 20 to 30 percent value-added reductions in operating costs while vastly improving products and services without capital expenditures.
Unfortunately, creeping, intrusive and punitive government regulations and axe-handle unionism forced most corporations to move their operations overseas in order to survive, costing thousands and thousands of high paying jobs to be lost. Thank you, government lawyers and union thugs who never managed a P&L, never had to meet a payroll, never managed a company or corporation, never started and grew a company that created jobs and more jobs.
Its time for Pay Back. RECRUIT and VOTE IN private sector managers, engineers, architects, technicians, others and yes… constitutional lawyers who understand private sector “LEAN and MEAN” optimization and TQM and watch, in short order, the restoration our magnificent country to that “Shining City on a Hill.”
boomerbabe| 7.22.10 @ 11:47PM
I hope that somehow this article with its comments is seen by at least a few of our candidates running to replace retiring, retreaded, or recalcitrant congress people. There are a lot of good ideas out here in the real world, U.S. Congress!
Brian| 7.23.10 @ 1:43AM
How bout eliminating the EPA, the Dept of education, the labor dept. just for starters. At least before going after unemployment insurance.
RCV| 7.23.10 @ 7:27PM
Dream on, TAS readers. While it is possible -- and only possible -- that the GOP might end up with a narrow majority in the House (and there is NO chance members will put Boehner out to pasture), there is little they will be able to accomplish. The Senate will remain firmly in control of the Democrats, thanks in no small part to the tea baggers who have transformed sure wins for the GOP in Florida, Nevada and Kentucky into horse races. Even without the Senate, President Obama retains his constitutional veto power, which he would use to quash any futile attempt at any of the reactionary measures proposed here.
Hey, but if it makes you guys happy for a change so that you stop the endless whining, well dream on!