The American Spectator : Stand and Deliver: Advice From a Federalist Governor

Text Size

Loose Canons

Stand and Deliver: Advice From a Federalist Governor

By Jed Babbin on 11.9.10 @ 6:09AM

Virginia’s Gov. Bob McDonnell knows what Republicans need to do — without delay.

RICHMOND, Va. — Congressional Republicans have a mandate to stop President Obama’s spending spree and rein in the federal budget. But they have a plethora of plans to get it done. How best to sort them out and get to work?

On the day after the election Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour threw out the idea of having some state governors take an unusual direct role in crafting those plans. In a Friday interview in his Richmond office, Governor Bob McDonnell told me he thought that Barbour’s idea was a great one. Between the two — and with the help of other like-minded fiscal conservative governors such as New Jersey’s Chris Christie — congressional Republicans could be able to act before the mandate they received a week ago expires. And by doing that, they may buy enough time to achieve the long-term budget cuts our nation needs.

Gov. McDonnell told me, “We have some very deep fiscal problems in this country that are going to take dramatic, bold action to fix. The Republicans campaigned on a fiscal conservative platform of economic development, job creation and deficit reduction. So, it’s time to deliver.”.

I asked the governor about the proposal to establish a new congressional committee to have jurisdiction over the entire government to craft spending cuts, a sort of “counter-appropriations” committee. He said, “They don’t need a committee: they need action. They need to have cuts.”

McDonnell is concerned about hints of delay. He said, “I’ve heard some plans out there that say we’re going to take eight years” to balance the federal budget. “I don’t think the American people are going to wait eight years to balance the budget.” And the governor has confidence that voters will support the bold actions he thinks necessary. “I’ve never seen a time where people were more willing to accept and more understanding of the need for sacrificing on government cuts than right now.”

The Virginian believes congressional Republicans should push immediately to tell people that Republicans want to put people back to work by passing legislation to continue all of the Bush-era tax cuts, further reduce capital gains taxes, and push other specific plans to create jobs. Then, McDonnell believes, there would be a foundation for a longer-term reassessment of how the federal government burdens the states.

As noted, the day after the election, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour suggested that conservative governors could come to Washington both to help congressional Republicans craft cuts to the federal budget and to bolster their resolution to act. McDonnell said, “It’s a great idea” and that he’d be honored if Congress would ask all governors — Democrat and Republican — to give advice. He thinks the governors could take an active role in both helping cut federal spending and bolster Republican confidence that the cuts would be well-received. He said the governors could “…tell them we’ve made these cuts and Rome didn’t burn and they didn’t throw us out of office.”

That confidence, McDonnell said, should not be based only in the congressional results. The depth of the new Republican mandate has to be measured also in terms of the gains Republicans made in state elections as well. As reported by the invaluable Michael Barone, Republicans took control of twenty state legislatures from the Democrats last week, gaining 675 seats, the biggest turnover since 1928.

McDonnell believes that the depth and breadth of the state-level victories should bring another element to the national spending debate. “It really is time for an honest and robust discussion about federalism,” he said. “What does the Tenth Amendment really mean? Part of the reason you’ve got this long-term deficit is you keep legislating in areas that you shouldn’t be in.”

McDonnell is a firm federalist: “Stick to what the federal government is supposed to do. Do that well — fund it well — but then stay out of areas that are traditionally reserved for the states. Let us manage those areas.” He added, “That’s the discussion we need to have over the next couple of years. Does the Tenth Amendment still mean anything? If so, govern within your bounds at the federal level.”

I posed the California dilemma to McDonnell. Governor-elect Jerry Brown is likely to preside over the first bankruptcy of a state. Should the feds bail California out?

“Absolutely not,” said McDonnell. “I don’t subscribe to ‘too big to fail.’ There’s no obligation of the United States to bail them out.” He believes that the campaign plan offered by Brown’s opponent, Meg Whitman, was as good a plan as could be devised and that the California legislature should adopt Whitman’s ideas to turn their state around.

Most governors — at least those who preside over states other than California — have to produce a balanced budget every year. They have to face the burgeoning unfunded mandates of Obamacare, Medicaid, and so much more. Their advice — otherwise unobtainable inside the Washington beltway — would be invaluable to congressional Republicans who might otherwise not be able to sort out their competing plans and deliver on their campaign promises.

Republican leaders — not just in the House, but in the Senate as well — should convene a closed-door meeting with Govs. Barbour, McDonnell, Christie and the other fiscally-conservative governors to do just that. And the doors shouldn’t be reopened until they come up with a bicameral plan of action that will deliver what the voters said they wanted on November 2: real cuts, real restraint of government spending and a concise plan that all of them can put into legislation that will pass the House in January.

Will Harry Reid try to block it? Of course. Will Obama veto it if Reid can’t? Naturally. Which is all the more reason to do it.

2012 will be here all too quickly. Republicans need to do what Bob McDonnell suggests: stand and deliver. Right now.

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (74) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Loadmaster| 11.9.10 @ 6:58AM

I've always wondered "why hasn't the states had more influence on their Senators and Congressman?". It would seem logical that the Gov have regular meetings with them. Gov has responsible for the state and the voters of that state elect these folks - so why should those elected Senators and Congressman report back directly to the State Governor. It's called accountability.

dennis| 11.9.10 @ 8:25AM

Maybe there would be more accountability to the governors if we hadn't tinkered with the constitution which originally had senators appointed by the governor rather than direct election. There was a reason the founding fathers set it up that way, dont you think?

Ted| 11.9.10 @ 8:54AM

Dennis, you hit the nail on the head. Senators were supposed to represent the state governments in Washington; Representatives were supposed to represent the People. This was done to avoid the predicament we now have: who represents the State goverments in DC? In reality, no one. And that's why we have little check on the Federal "authority" to impose unfunded mandates on the states.

Sheila| 11.9.10 @ 11:25AM

Ted - well said.

crookedwren| 11.9.10 @ 9:10AM

EXACTLY.

Ed| 11.9.10 @ 8:45PM

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment, Senators were elected by the state's legislatures, no the governors.

And yes, the 17th should be repealed and we should go back to the way the Founders intended.

Alan Brooks| 11.9.10 @ 10:06PM

Is Conscription Unconstitutional?: Amendment 13 to the U.S. Constitution: Section 1: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States...
You have no right to draft young men--boys, really-- they don't have to die for your sins.

McGehee | 11.11.10 @ 11:32AM

Notice, if one looks at the actual record, which party it was that last introduced a draft-reinstatement bill in Congress: the Democrats.

Jack| 11.10.10 @ 7:00AM

Consider Attribute #5 of Liberty vs. 'Soft' Tyranny:

Liberty: "Government authority is decentralized in a federal system with limited powers fixed by their original meaning"

'Soft' Tyranny: "Government authority is centralized in a national system with powers re-interpreted to be as broad as necessary"

More detail here: http://www.streamingliberty.co.....;Itemid=14

Mike Rogers| 11.11.10 @ 1:01AM

Indeed so. In the early 20th century, progressives destroyed federalism by passing the 16th and 17th amendments, effectively nationalizing both election of senators and the revenues with which to bribe and coerce the states. A few years later, FDRs machinations turned the supreme court into a rubber stamp for using the commerce clause to legislate absolutely anything and force it upon the states.

Here's my platform:
Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.
(Ann Coulter says repeal the 26th, too.)
Enact an amendment requiring all laws to be supported by a strict constructionalist reading of the constitution, and repealing all laws based upon an expansive view of the commerce or general welfare clauses.
Close all departments created by said unconstitutional legislation and eliminate all regulations created by these departments usurping congress' role.
Devolve all welfare programs and tax collection to the states. (Most will choose sales taxes)
Now, for the much smaller federal government, assess the cost against the states based on a percentage of the state's own revenues - the state which runs the leanest government pays the smallest amount to the general treasury.

What say you?

Danielle Gleason| 11.12.10 @ 9:28AM

Right on! Would love to see this happen in my lifetime (I'm 72).

Doug| 11.9.10 @ 10:00AM

The 17th ammendment is your source of this trouble I'd say.

Joe Oliva| 11.9.10 @ 1:26PM

Exactly right! Once a candidate for the senate needed to run a statewide campaign, the natural move was to seek the help of the party. Hence, allegiance switched from serving the state to serving the party, and the monster called the federal government began to grow by leaps and bounds.

uncle curmudgeon| 11.9.10 @ 2:26PM

The 16th, 17th, and 18th = pure evil. Thanks, Progressives.

Ret. Marine| 11.9.10 @ 7:04AM

I agree wholeheartedly with this proposal. It will separate those who think they rule over us vrs. who the boss really is. We the People, not the pretender=thief. obamas Bin Lyn.
He might as well get the veto pencil out and ready. This will really cement in the minds of the patriots who the real, not imaginary enemy is.
I can see 2012 from the fly-over country and if the Republicans go against their words, esp. if they start an in house fight, then they lose, We still gain. We will be able to finish off the RINO's, once and for all and start a true conservative Constitution Party. Lets just see who out numbers who. Either way, it is true the new governing party is only on a return but probationary basis and they will have their arses handed back to them if they refuse to get it correct this time around.

Beer for My Horses| 11.9.10 @ 7:15AM

Great idea, but the devil will be in the details, and mathematically it will be impossible to balance the the federal budget without entitlement reform.

A few suggestions along that line: (1) Eliminate the age-62 early retirement; (2) Raise the retirement age to 70.5 for everyone not already retired; (3) Means-test eligibility for Social security and Medicare so that no one with a net worth of more than $2.5 million can benefit under those programs.

MikeBee| 11.9.10 @ 10:02AM

(4) Create a lockbox for Social Security and Medicare funds. Government MAY NOT use our retirement funds for the General Fund, or any other fund. If I tried to use employee's retirement money to balance the company's books, I would rightly be placed in prison for this. But, we let the Feds do this with SS and Medicare.

buckeyeman| 11.9.10 @ 10:38AM

Great socialist idea there, Beer. So let me get this straight. If you retired last week at 62 with a net worth of $2.4999 million you get to skate on in just like the good ol' days. Otherwise, the retirement age jumps instantly by 8 1/2 years and a $2.50001 million net worth disqualifies you completely from the system which you contributed to for, perhaps 50 or more years (I started working and receiving W-2 pay when I was about 12, which was 48 years ago).

So, despite my gigantic forced contributions over the years, the folks who spent their money on beer, wine, cigarettes, lottery tickets, hookers, tickets to Michael Moore movies, girlie magazines, or whatever, get their "promised" benefits and I get nothing. No, I don't need it but that's not the point. Your ideas are just another example of why we are SCREWED. A pretend conservative who still wants to soak the rich so you don't lose your own precious benefits that I paid for. Go back to the barn and drink more beer with your horses. After all, under your system, I'll be paying the bar tab.

Beer for My Horses| 11.9.10 @ 11:33AM

Ouch! I have been accused of being a socialist!

Ok, ok, so there will have to be transition rules. My point is, you're never going to balance the federal budget if you don't buck up and confront the entitlement mess. It simply can't be done otherwise.

One more point: You will never find a solution to the budget problem that everyone agrees is fair. Someone's ox is going to be gored no matter what. Better my generation (I'm 56) bites the bullet. I am a baby-boomer, but I would happily give up my "entitlement rights" to see the federal budget balanced in my lifetime. I still happen to think America is worth it.

FourBee| 11.9.10 @ 4:23PM

Gents, if you're gonna cut 'entitlements', how about cuttin' those at the front end . . . no more fat checks for fat chicks with a dozen rug rats. Megamom hasn't paid a dime in 'contributions' and collects thousands in bennies. Chance are very good that Multi-Mamacita isn't even a US citizen. Once bebe gets hatched, the whole 'caregiver' crew is entitled to US welfare.

Nahh, go ahead and screw us old guys who paid in for 58 years, served our time in the Army and worked our daily hours all those years. WHy not take my veteran's disability while you're at it?

Beer for My Horses| 11.9.10 @ 4:46PM

We are a compassionate nation and would not let the dozen rug rats suffer because MegaMom can't keep her knees together.

But I see your point...

Bazza McKenzie| 11.9.10 @ 5:58PM

@Beer for My Horses

I love that phrase "compassionate nation", used as a justification for tax theft to give to the object of a person's "compassion".

Charity and compassion are personal acts, not government ones. Aside from natural disasters, which require immediate, large scale action by organized, well equipped groups such as the military, government "compassion" is just an excuse for socialism.

The US has long been the most generous society in the world, in terms of private giving. The intrusion of government to turn charity into an entitlement has reduced private giving and with it the discretion and sensitivity to the circumstances of the recipient.

Beer for My Horses| 11.9.10 @ 6:34PM

There is such a thing as the "deserving poor" in this country and they are easily distiguised from FourBees's hypothetical MegaMom.

Conservatives should have no quibble with government providing a daily meal to an impoverished inner-city child from a dysfuntional family or providing basic medical care to anyone below a certain economic threshold assuming their predicament is not the result of bad choices or moral shortcomings.

binnaiswrong| 11.9.10 @ 9:09PM

I have no quibble with providing food for impoverished children and in fact donate to my local food bank often. I give of my own money and while I see a slight decrease in my taxes because of it, the amount that I give goes directly to the food bank. The problem with government involvement is that every level takes a cut for their overhead and in order to get my same $100 per month to the food bank, my portion of taxes would be five times that amount. So, my problem isn't providing for the needy but when government does it, very little gets to them, what gets there is controlled in its distribution by a bureaucrat using metrics in order to gauge the impact, and on the way a lot of it goes to my many useless layers of public officials.

Government provided benefits aren't for the needy, they're indulgences bought by the rich so they can have a clear conscience as they avoid "that" part of town in the Mercedes minivan.

geokster| 11.10.10 @ 1:58AM

[quote]I have no quibble with providing food for impoverished children. [/quote]

I do have a problem with this; what this system has done is create a generational gap between the givers and the takers. We now have a history of four generations of welfare takers in my part of the country, which is growing daily.
These welfare takers have learned a zero work ethic, there is no incentive to work, (why work for $8.00/hr when you can sit on the porch and drink beer and still get $6.00/hr?) Almost everyone can do the math,,, need more money for beer?... just cut back on how much you spend on your kids school lunches and let the Federal Gov pick up the slack.

Spend a little time in East Texas and Western Louisiana and you will find an American welfare genus which has learned how to play the game like a finely tuned violin.

If we could just clean up the welfare fraud and waste mess in my state, it would save millions. I dunno about Louisiana...

MikeD| 11.9.10 @ 5:58PM

How about tying the benefit received to the payments contributed? Add maybe 3% or 4% interest. You don't pay in, you don't get anything out.

Mandate EVERY federal government employee, elected and appointed go into the system. If the govt. employee has not yet retired, transfer their credits to social security; if they have, transfer credit and peg payments to the average social security payment by age and service time. Elective service was never intended to be a career; so we need to make it harder to suck on the government teat.

All federal employees, same classes, go into Medicare, giving them a real stake in its survival. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. The only exception is for the Military, unless other federal employees would like to sign up for combat.

George S| 11.9.10 @ 11:53AM

The problem with entitlements is not the devil in the details but the fact that entitlement recipients vote. Whether it's seniors or government employees, they have a vested interest in taxing our income and borrowing from our children. Someone is going to have to be out voted. There is no easy solution -- to reform entitlements we have to send wave after wave of Reagans and Goldwaters into Congress, watch them get slaughtered at the ballot box as they propose reform, until one day our numbers simply overwhelm. That will take years and sacrifice. A much cleaner solution is to deprive entitlement recipients the right to vote. Then we would be called Democrats.

Beer for My Horses| 11.9.10 @ 1:50PM

Lots of colorful language here, George. When the national debt "simply overwhelms" the GDP, the politicians slaughtered at the ballot box for the most part won't be feeling a thing economically. The rest of us probably will. It won't be pretty.

Perhaps what is needed is a new class of politician with enough vision to see beyond the next election cycle. They must either make the deep accross-the-board cuts in the entitlements that are necessary or we can all just watch this nation go to h***.

MikeD| 11.9.10 @ 6:05PM

I'm back with another bit of insanity. How many of you realize that EVERY PERSON WHO QUALIFIES FOR DISABILITY GOES ON SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE? (It matters not if they have their own insurance.)

I had self funded disability insurance for many years because I was told 30 years ago that my chances of disability were higher than death while my kids were young. So, I bought disability insurance. Then I got a rare nerve disease that is crippling me; a form of ALS that is taking away my ability to do about anything.

To my horror, I learned that I had to qualify for, and receive, Social Security and Medicare even though I had made provision for myself years ago; and paid for it. So, my insurance company pays the government and they pay me my social security. Then I get what's left and have to go on Medicare. We had to move out of Atlanta because fewer and fewer doctors can afford to take Medicare. See what trying to do the right thing does to you.

Beer for My Horses| 11.9.10 @ 8:10PM

You have made the case for entitlement reform - right now!

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.9.10 @ 8:24AM

A bill:
All non- military federal institutions shall across the pay scale of their staff cut wages and positions ten percent a year until private sector parity is accomplished.

JohnD| 11.9.10 @ 1:03PM

To establish parity with the private sector they would have to raise federal pay. I work for the feds, and I am a lawyer, and I make about 20% of what the average private sector lawyer makes. Some of my law school classmates make over 10 times what I make.

A better idea is to freeze federal hiring, and let reduction in numbers occur. About 25% of the federal work force is due to retire in the next 5 years. Just don't rehire anyone.

Michael L. Hauschild| 11.9.10 @ 7:01PM

That would work too, but in my bill I said "wage." Never met a lawyer yet that actually had a bottom line "wage." Nor will you find the term "pro bono" in your goverment guideline handbook.

RPM| 11.9.10 @ 8:31PM

You must make next to nothing. The average private sector lawyer makes just over $100k/yr; you make $20K/yr? The part time job at Starbucks keeps you afloat?

These poor mouthing government employees, with every obscure holiday off, vacation time that none of the rest of us can ever dream of, the no-fire clause and a retirement package work a couple million give me a pain.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.9.10 @ 9:26AM

Our Governor is in some of those closed door meetings in DC this week.

Paul D| 11.9.10 @ 10:02AM

Entire Federal agencies need to be abolished. We need to lay off 500,000 Federal workers - immediately.

It's the only way.

But it ain't gonna happen.

Maddox| 11.9.10 @ 12:53PM

Yes replace government services with private sector jobs and remove the cost to taxpayers. Win-win.
But you are right, won't happen.

Al Adab| 11.9.10 @ 10:19AM

Nationally the Governors need to take a leadership role in demonstrating good government. As executives within our Federal system they play a significant role setting national policy. Let us hope they rise to the occasion.

After all, "The powers not delegated ...are reserved to the states respectivly..."

Bob Miller| 11.9.10 @ 10:19AM

Providing such advice is well within Gov. Mitch Daniels' expertise.

P. LaMontagne| 11.9.10 @ 10:30AM

We must begin the process of de-funding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and leaving it to the states to run these programs, and enact large cuts in defense by withdrawing our troops from places like Germany where they are clearly not needed at all.

Sheila| 11.9.10 @ 11:31AM

Excellent advice, P. LaMontagne, but given the percentage of the Republican vote that consists of those on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, it will never happen. "It's MY money," they whine, refusing to recognize that the government has clearly and legally documented it as a tax. Most get out far more than they ever put in, and even then they cry out in righteous anger when anyone threatens their COLAs (and for all those "mature voters" ready to chastise my youthful impertinence, I'm 52). I don't know if I'd agree with your term defense "cuts;" we most definitely should withdraw our troops from Germany and Korea (these nations are well able, physically and economically, to defend themselves) - but these same troops should then be deployed to protect our borders.

Faffnir| 11.9.10 @ 11:43AM

They might not be needed in Germany at the moment, but they are surely needed nearby. Germany provides a needed logistics nexus close to the operating combat theaters.

Plus the beer is good, and if my memory still holds, the frauleins are cute.

PaulD| 11.9.10 @ 10:30AM

We are living the nightmare of the founding fathers: a federal government out of control, forcing states to kowtow to its agenda while simultaneously failing to fulfill its own responsibilities. Governor McDonnell is a glimmer of hope that we can pound the Federal Government back into its supporting, rather than dominating, role to the states.

Derek Leaberry| 11.9.10 @ 11:13AM

What we're hearing are weak beer calls for cuts of $ 100 billion when the deficit is $ 1.3 trillion. They'll have to do better than that. Whole departments must be eliminated. Foreign aid ended. American funding of the IMP, World Bank and United Nations will have to end. The troops will have to come home. The Defense Budget will have to be halved and soldiers, marines and sailors will have to be cashiered. Ships will have to be mothballed. Most military bases will have to be closed. At least if the Republicans are serious about big government and deficit cutting- which they are not. Expect disappointment after disappointment over the next two years.

Sheila| 11.9.10 @ 11:34AM

Absolutely, Derek Leaberry - it's all small change until you address the behemoth entitlements portion of the federal budget. I've not heard a single politician willing to take these on. I always expect disappointment when relying on man; only in God do I trust.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.9.10 @ 11:34AM

DREK,
That post was just stupid.

How is it that you have a computer in your "log cabin"?

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.9.10 @ 11:30AM

This article by Kevin Williamson is the best I have seen on international finance...brilliant!

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....williamson

Perusha| 11.9.10 @ 12:16PM

I think it is useful to keep in mind that we are always negotiating.

The recent election was simply the most salient example of this, and it was like the “final” price at an auction---SOLD, to the highest bidder!

However, we all know this political reality known as America is ongoing, and regularly must have supply and demand fight it out, in order to determine the “price”.

In short, the Governors, Congress persons and President, simply put, are the equivalent of the best players in the NBA, say, playing the game in NEGOTIATING combat.

I read a wonderful book, “You Can Negotiate Anything”, in 1980. The author expanded on P.I.T., basically.

Power: who has the most power, has the advantage.

Information: who has the most knowledge about what is being negotiated has the advantage.

Time: who has the most time, has the advantage.

Take the latter first. Since Obama will be in power for two more years, this time span can’t be filled with new LAWS to undo much horrible legislation or do great stuff.

As for power, with one half of one third of the federal power structure, the best negotiating ammunition the GOP has is the power to say NO. So, of course, stopping the bleeding from the bleeding hearts is the fixed action to be rigorously done, daily.

What about information?

I believe the just concluded election opened Pandora’s Box with undeniable incriminating information that can never be forgotten, which has convicted the present-day Pelosi-Reid-Obama con artists as the socialists (at least!) they are.

So, for the next two years it behooves the warriors in the arena for the Right and/or the GOP to use their limited power to spread the truth---inform MORE and MORE people, over TIME, about this deadly threat to America’s very existence that is O-R-P.

Then, after doing as much as possible with their (OUR!) limited power for two years, to curtail the scoundrels O-R-P, in 2012 quite enough voters will be scared straight by the TRUE information regarding the attempted hostile takeover of this free country.

Yes---VERY tough love is called for!

Or, as was a famous saying when my father was young—“Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.”

Tim the Enchanter| 11.9.10 @ 12:27PM

Unfortunate choice of title for this article: the phrase "Stand and Deliver" is the British equivalent of "Stick 'em up!"

Derek Leaberry| 11.9.10 @ 12:39PM

In somewhat relevant news, the Chinese credit rating agency Dagong has reduced the American credit rating for the second time this year. America's credit rating began the year at AAA, was lowered to A + in July, and has been downgraded once again to AA. Countries with $ 1.3 trillion deficits that refuse to cut spending but instead print money to cover deficits tend to lose its credit trustfulness.

Oldefarte| 11.9.10 @ 12:54PM

My proposal would be to immediately form legislative investigations of Obama/Democrats with the express purpose of IMPEACHMENT [which would tie up their time/energy]. Correspondingly, begin legislative actions to eliminate or reduce foreign aid, farm aid, excessive military hardware, all welfare not dirceted towards those individuals to old/sick to work [and/or to begin converting welfare to workfare], the federal educational department [and return control of same back to the states where it belongs], all governmental labor unions, and an across the board 15,20,25% cut in all governmental budgets. Taxes need to be maintained at their current levels [and definately not increased as Democrats want to do]. All of this would signal to the business community that our government is not their enemy, but rather their friend/supporter. Businesses would be encouraged to grow/spend their current excess cash reserves, employment would therefore be increased, and consumers with the resultant jobs would be encouraged to spend, thereby further growing business and our economy. By constraining Obama/Democrats with IMPEACHMENT CHARGES, this couldshould be accompolished easily, and the reductions to our governmental expenses would, in the long run, facilitate futuristic tax reductions by government!!!!!!!!

Reagan Loyalist| 11.9.10 @ 1:47PM

Start with a 5 year moratorium on the 35% corporate tax. This will prime the investment capital pumps, fire up the market and bring the almighty consumer back into the economy by creating jobs AND it wouldn't cost as much as Obama's TARP! 3,2,1 GO!

RPM| 11.9.10 @ 8:54PM

Wouldn't "cost" a cent. Every nickle of corp tax gets passed on to consumer. Result of cutting corp tax rate to zero (permanently) would be a huge rush of companies bringing businesses back from overseas.

coolcons | 11.9.10 @ 2:03PM

Tim the Enchanter beat me to it! Unless Mr. Babbin was trying to be funny that wasn't the title to use. I hate to rain on the parade of an excellent idea but dealing with the tax issue is the easy part. Its entitlements where the problem lies and the gov of Virginia is right to point out that people are ready to make a sacrifice but - how to do it. A recent article by Dave Stockman in Minyanville, yes that Dave Stockman, not my favorite by any means but a very sobering assessment of how this is going to play out over the next two years politics wise. What he says about the economic fix we are in is depressing frankly. The Republican governors need to empower the Paul Ryans if we are to have some real hope and change.

David| 11.9.10 @ 2:24PM

What?!!! Include the democrat governors, too?!!!

Can someone name one state or big city run by dems that isn't going broke and isn't a big sh_thole to live in?

Stop the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). I realize that isn't the answer to our financial problems, but it would save billions a year. Also, getting rid of EITC will begin to eliminate the mindset that government is our caretaker. Lower income people will have to either improve their skills to get better paying jobs, or they will have to accept the fact that in order to make ends meet they will have to work 60 - 80 hours per week.

I have railed against the EITC on this site in the past, and it continues to be the giveaway that irritates me the most. This program is outright theft of fed income taxpaying citizens' money to give to those who pay zero fed income taxes. It is one thing to give lower income folks food stamps, housing allowances, medicaid, and other directly targeted and specific help, and it is an entire other matter to give thousands of dollars of tax free money to millions of lower income people every tax season to spend on WHATEVER they want. They are not required to save it for necessities of life, or to save to pay medical bills, or anything else. They get to spend it on their WANTS, paid for by actual taxpayers.

And people wonder how it is that lower income folks have virtually all of the conveniences and technological gadgets and problems with overeating that middle income people do.

MikeD| 11.9.10 @ 6:13PM

Here in Florida we are being inundated with commercials for FREE CELL PHONES! Some moronic group in our government is giving free cell phones that we are paying for. They even claim to be able to make long distance calls to Mexico and they can also keep their current phone number which means they already have a phone, one that we're most likely paying for too.

Multiply that by thousands and that's the crux of the problem. We're pi$$ing away so much money nobody in government even knows where it goes. How about charging every one who voted for transfer payments with criminal theft and holding them personally responsible!!!

Redstateboy| 11.9.10 @ 4:51PM

I read all these comments - they're good but I don't think too many people are grasping what exactly just happened in the last 2 years.. My beloved - adopted State - Tennessee - for the 11 years I've been here - has been a fiscally Conservative State.. We HAD a "Rainey Day fund" of over 100 Million dollars... Now, because of the Porkulus Bill and HussienCare.. we're over 1 Billion dollars in the hole.. AND WE'RE ONE OF THE LUCKY STATES!!

Youdub| 11.9.10 @ 8:05PM

How did healthcare reform cause your state to become broke when most of the bill hasn't even been implemented yet? And how does a stimulus bill that sends federal dollars to the states for projects also make your state broke? It sounds like you have been misled by irresponsible lawmakers in your state. Perhaps your anger would be better directed at your local representatives.

Redstateboy| 11.9.10 @ 5:10PM

Every State accepted that Blood Money.. Some swilled at the Trough more than others KNOWING that that money would run out!! That Pathetic Governor of Michigan.. She couldn't get enough of that dough and now she's out of office and Michigan?? It's about to dry up and blow away, then there's the People's Republic of NY and CA.. between the 2 they're over 100 Billion dollars in debt!! and people think... Naaa... we won't have riots like in Greece and France here and I say.... get use to the wail of Sirens.

linda | 11.9.10 @ 5:27PM

unless we stop the earmarks, our reps will spend their time working on their re-election(trading earmarks) instead of working on our business. i would like the spectator to go back to gov mcdonald and ask him how lobbyist have contributed to our crisis.

Rod| 11.9.10 @ 6:54PM

Anyone who recieves money or benefits or pays no taxes, should get 1/2 a vote.

Rod| 11.9.10 @ 6:58PM

What was Obama’s trip to Asia really about if not to redistribute the wealth of America to the 3rd world? That India was included should give us pause after the experience of China draining our life blood ever since Bill Clinton gave that country favored nation trading status. Redistribution of Western wealth to the 3rd world has a precedent with Obama. Recall that as a junior senator he co-authored a bill, the Global Poverty Act (S2433), to send billions of American tax payer money to the UN for distribution to poor nations.

Obama touted his trip as good for American trade. He said it will provide us new markets. He omits that trade with these “markets” will be grossly unbalance; that is, it will cause our trade deficit to grow. GW Bush said the same about NAFTA, that it would provide new markets. But our trade deficit with Mexico alone is $60 billion. And has NAFTA helped South America? Mexico seems to be more like Columbia every week. A Majority of Guatemalan men now come to America for work - each one pays the Mexican gatekeeper $7000 for passage. Think what long-term damage that is doing to Guatemalan society where families are separated for up to 12 years or more during their young lives!

What NAFTA did do is make a safe platform for American business to move to. With NAFTA in place, American business knows it can hire South American cheap labor and also have a safe market in the US. Obama apparently will set up the same platform in India, where the labor force is truly gigantic and low paid and where the people are highly intelligent entrepreneurs.

Then too, India, unlike China, is a democracy with all the potential that that implies. Also, India is unburdened by growing socialism and environmental restrictions. It may be that Obama hopes increased trade with India will accomplish another of his goals: that of weakening the US economy so that our population will demand a socialist centrally planned and protected society. The more third world nations he can get sucking on the American economy the better.

Obama’s Asian trip goes some way to further a larger objective. Once large corporations can find safe platforms in the 3rd world, that is, platforms from which they can produce things to export to the wealthy West, primarily the US, then pressure would mount for a one world government authority to regulate international business.

While the pundits were discussing at length the merits of Nancy Pelosi’s decadency to minority leadership, something that is probably unimportant, President Obama was quietly (there was little discussion of it) opening trade with India, something of vast importance to the future of America. Obama was opening another giant third world sucking machine on the US economy.

Some people might have trouble objecting to “free” trade, even uneven trade. It has been said Herbert Hoover helped precipitate the Great Depression by putting tariffs on imports, so that our European trading partners reciprocated by putting tariffs on US exports. But there are differences between then and now. Then the table was even – wage disparities across the Atlantic were essentially non existent. And, unlike with China, our Europeans trading partners did not artificially peg their currencies low to the dollar. China pays its workers 50 cents an hour, and India pays its workers about the same. So the table is uneven.

Also, leading up to the Great Depression exports accounted for a larger percent of gross national product than they do now. Now we have a large trade deficit whereas then we had a trade surplus. Then we had a robust manufacturing base, so much so that during the 1920s America purchased huge quantities of European debt. Now we have a weak manufacturing base. Also, now our corporate tax rate is high so that businesses that might export are at a serious disadvantage.

In any case, according to Murray N Rothberg, author of America’s Great Depression, the prime cause of the depression was easy money pushed by the Fed; an artificially low discount rate encouraged investments during a bubble when entrepreneurs should have been pulling back.

Henry Miller| 11.9.10 @ 9:31PM

"...then stay out of areas that are traditionally reserved for the states..."

"Tradition" has nothing to do with it! Despite decades of wilful mal-interpretation by Congress and the Supreme Court, the powers of the federal government are very clearly defined and everything else belongs to the states.

bro| 11.9.10 @ 11:51PM

What a bunch of knuckle heads. You really believe in the conservative crap. It amazes me...

Alan Brooks| 11.10.10 @ 12:23AM

Though there WAS something, IMO, to Hunter Thompson's saying "Reagan was the last great American."

Not to say he was the Second Coming or anything.

jb| 11.10.10 @ 2:13AM

Every new Congressional Republican elect needs to take a serious look at the USDA overall farm subsidies. Many big cooperate farmers are getting filthy rich for not growing certain crops. The USDA budget is huge and needs a big trimming. And a big re-origination.

Good luck on that.

John| 11.10.10 @ 4:45AM

Social Security if you look back to what the Act was entitled was supposed to insurance. Make it so. It one, no matter of income level, saves enough to live on that saving should. When that money runs out then Social Security should kick in. For those who opt not to save for retirement then well they should complain what little the will get from Social Security. I'm employed by the State of Illinois and because of that I do not have with holdings for Social Security. Since I don't, I have taken steps to not count on it. Medicare should fool similar formula. People need to take responsibility for them selves. Plain and simple.

As for elected/appointed officials at any level of government, they should be treated as self employed. What I mean is that it is not a career even if they make it theirs. No pension or any other benefits once out of office. This would eliminate 'career' politicians. Take it a step further make a requirement that private sector work is a prerequisite. Actual work. Term limits would be built by this or could be added. Campaign contributions left over once all debts for the the election cycle are paid should be surrendered to the level of office sought by all candidates winners and losers. This money should be out toward debt reduction or if no debt infrastructure. This money should be in addition to what is budgeted (not a substitute to lower funding that can be used else where).

All of the above is simplified for here, i.e. not completely detailed out. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how to overcome some odds and ends. This would not solve everything but would be a start. Then other issues can then follow suit. Self reliance needs to be a renewed priority. It what makes us as American different than everybody else in the world. Yes there will be those who fall through the cracks which need attention. But they should not completely rely on 'government' to completely coddle them. Everybody has to remember no matter what they do, how down and out they are, or helpless they feel - We all have the greatest power on Earth. That is the Power to Choose.

Thorvald| 11.10.10 @ 6:43AM

It's called the Tenth Amendment.
Cut Federal taxes and the Federal Budget by exactly the amount the Federal government sends back to the 50 states, plus the Federal overhead on those disbursements.
While you're at it, ban the use of air conditioners in every Congressional office in Washington, D.C. That should send them all back to their homes for the summer. We'd be safe for a few months, anyway.

Pelligrino| 11.10.10 @ 2:16PM

If Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia were really serious about saving Virginia taxpayers money and helping make Virginia always solvent into the future he would (as a tax-saving project):

Privatize the highway rest areas.

The rest areas are needed (very important for motorists' safety, for one) AND should not go away (as was his first decision; they were CLOSED so motorist and truckers could not enter).

Allow commercial companies to bid on individual rest stops. Some stipulation: The area has to remain a rest stop open to everyone with restrooms, parking, picnic area, dog walking zone, BUT the company owning and operating the rest area can establish commercial "enterprises" like a cafe, restaurant, fueling station, bookstore, or even motel or hotel. If enough land permits, a small camping area.

Why not?

This is one small example where I don't see "new thinking" and true innovation to solve simple, everyday problems.

Just ask: Why is a highway rest area government property? (100% taxpayer funded)

Why can't this needed rest area (families with kids or when you travel with seniors, you know how valuable a rest area is) be a self-sustaining, self-funding entity?

Not a dime of taxpayers' money is needed. Ever.

Yes, this "rest area' example is but a small example. Add up implementation of other such examples, and we might actually see some leadership by our elected officials.

Now, wouldn't that be something.

So, are you listening, Gov. McDonnell?

Ken Roberts| 11.11.10 @ 1:26PM

I love it when people talk about spending other peoples money . It makes me want to bury what I have in the back yard

Larry NJ| 11.12.10 @ 12:47AM

There's no question America is ready to make cuts, increase retirement age, cut federal pay and abolish agencies. Whatever it takes.

All the Republicans have to do, is have a way voters can vote - or pre-approve, or at least agree on - the pros and cons of issues, and their consequences.

If republicans do that: 1. make a proposal, 2. get feedback 3. finalize changes and ask for feedback with some polling mechanism, IT CAN BE DONE.

There are no more "3rd Rail" issues, or Sacred Cows: there is only solving problems by tough, voter-approved and understood (not like health care or financial "reform" that is written as you go) legislation that is implemented as soon as possible.

With an eye on pulling back red tape and unfair trade practices to level the playing field for small businesses whose work has been shipped overseas, we can be humming again, in spite of the Socialist chaos and destruction of the last 18 months.

jgo| 11.12.10 @ 11:31AM

Eliminate the Socialist Insecurity Abomination, Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid.

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.

suzie| 1.30.11 @ 1:56AM

Go Bob Go.

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|47 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|43 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|24 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|14 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|13 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|20 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|8 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|14 comments

The Spectacle Blog

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

Morning Round-Up 5-23

Patrick Ryan | 10:06AM