-
Earth Day 2013: The Papal Edition
April 22, 2013 | 22 comments
-
Is God a Methodist?
April 15, 2013 | 57 comments
-
A Status Quo Budget at Best
April 11, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Marriage Issue Will Not Go Away
April 2, 2013 | 87 comments
-
Shakespeare’s Henry V Commands the Stage
March 11, 2013 | 10 comments
Political Hay
Learning to Love Sequestration
In an age of Democratic denial, there really may be no other option.
Paul Ryan says it’s going to happen, the sequestration, that is. One can hardly imagine any alternative scenario, in which Democrats and Republicans work it all out, and come out singing Kumbaya with a deal to avert the workings of the automatic cuts, share and share alike, to domestic and defense discretionary spending.
Certainly, it would be better a) to prioritize cuts, and b) to reform entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security over a longer time line. The former is just common sense. The latter would reduce any short-term hit on the economy while improving the long-run balance sheet of the nation and head off cascading and uncontrolled spending and inevitable tax increases caused by changing demographics, i.e., low birth rates and an ageing population, and the fact that the entitlements are on auto-pilot and not subject to negotiations or restraint in the normal budgetary process in Congress.
But no Democrat is willing to jump on entitlements. No Republican wants to jump, say, on farm subsidies or defense spending. Let the grandchildren be damned.
For some time now I have been resisting the inexorable trajectory of my thought process regarding the budget process. In a sane world responsible grown-ups think about the future of the commonwealth and the fate of their children’s children, recognize that ours is a spending problem not a revenue problem, and get on with the hard work of restructuring the federal budget, again, over time, in such a way as to make the medicine go down more easily.
To put it another way, as bad as the current national debt is, now over $16 trillion, up from $2.9 trillion from the Reagan era, it pales next to the unfunded liabilities for entitlements, again, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The GAO puts the shortfall at $45.8 trillion over 75 years, requiring an additional $612 billion a year to overcome it.
Others, pointing to a range of items, on and off, budget, including federal pensions and retirement health care, argue that the actual figure is closer to $86.8 trillion.
Whatever figure you find more credible, it is several times higher than the $16 trillion figure commonly used in these discussions. So wouldn’t it make a lot of sense to engage in structural reform of entitlements as the number one priority even as some reasonable restraints are placed on discretionary spending?
Not gonna happen. It certainly hasn’t to date, and there is no indication that it will anytime soon. So we will proceed to cut discretionary spending, that is everything that makes up what most citizens think of as “government” — defense, National Parks, the Weather Service, infrastructure and the like — leaving the entitlements to careen towards ultimate collapse too.
Ryan, House Budget Committee chairman, has been charged by his caucus to come up with a plan to eliminate the deficit in ten years without raising taxes. It isn’t as if his first plan for achieving a balanced budget in thirty years wasn’t controversial enough. Obviously, either approach requires addressing entitlements, which is a good thing. But Democrats will not play ball on balancing the budget in either ten or thirty years. We hoped this impasse would be resolved by the last election, but here we are again.
So maybe we should thank our lucky stars that, due to blind dumb luck, we have stumbled into sequestration, a $1.2 trillion mandatory cut Congress designed to be so draconian that it would have to do something else. The “something else” has little chance of happening. Thus, Ryan’s prediction that the sequestration is going to happen is probably correct.
According to Professor Jeff Bergner, writing in the Wall Street Journal, “Some would inevitably argue that these cuts are unfair. Is the current budget fair? Everyone knows that a $3.6 trillion budget isn’t the happy result of Congress providing exactly what is ‘fair’ to every program.”
“The federal budget is the result of temporary and arbitrary political compromises, with each program funded as much as its advocates can get it and as little as its detractors can support,” says Bergner.
Bergner points out “There is no transcendent wisdom here, nor any argument that a federal budget that preserves the current allocation of spending, but at a slightly lower level, is somehow less fair.”
“Are we really to believe that a government that spent $2.7 trillion five years ago couldn’t survive a 3% cut that would bring spending to only $3.5 trillion today?” asks the good Professor.
Ergo, let it rip. Maybe it is time to start loving the sequestration.
Photo: UPI
About the Author
G. Tracy Mehan, III served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the administrations of both Presidents Bush. He is a consultant in Arlington, Virginia, and an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (97) | Leave a comment
More Articles by G. Tracy Mehan, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/29/learning-to-love-sequestration
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
- A President Loses His Power
- The (Real) Great Divide
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
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 6:51AM
Here's an idea. Get rid of the limit on Social Security contributions at the 110k income level, and have no limit. Everyone at every income bracket should pay in.
I'm pretty sure guys making 1 million year won't miss an extra 50k to the tax man. If they do they are just selfish greedy men.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 7:45AM
I have a better idea. Get the 50% of the population who pay Nothing, to Pay Income Tax. Get rid of the Communist Manifesto Progressive Tax Structure, and replace it with a Flat Tax. EVERYBODY Pays the same rate. I think if you check your Dictionary you'll find that a Flat Tax in the Definition of FAIR. Even an Idiot like you can read a Dictionary, right?
"But they pay Sales Tax."
Sales Tax ISN'T Income Tax. Those are State Taxes.
Soc. Sec. Should be Means Tested, just like the VA is. My Representative: That Skank Wh*r* (What Bill Mahr said) Rosa Delora - and her Husband - Stanley Greenberg - have over $100 Billion between them yet they will Both be feeding at the Public Trough on Retirement Day.
I, on the other hand, a Veteran who served 4 Years in the U.S. Military, am NOT ALLOWED to recieve Medical Care from the Veterans Administration because MY WIFE makes more than $33,000 a Year.
Meanwhile, Julio and Juanita, and all of their little Brood of Illegal Invaders, as well as the 98 %ers that came out of their Government Housing to give President Fluck You if you get outta bed and go to work every day and pay your bills and try and save money so your kids can go to College, their Votes.
What's Anal Arnie's Plan?
"We should Tax the Rich. They don't Pay their Fair Share. France is Taxing them at 85%. we need to Tax them at 99%. They have more money than me and I hate'em."
Not the 50% who PAY NOTHING.
The 2% who Pay 80% already.
He'd a made a Great Gulag Administrator.
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 8:17AM
So you need medical care TLP?
You could fly overseas and get it cheaper in many countries, even without local insurance.
I don't hate the rich. I'm just doing math. There is no reason why social security and Medicare should go broke, unless of course we will it and let it.
Many of the people in the lower 50 perecent, with all taxes considered, still have a net tax rate, and not much different than say Romney's. Plus, many of them pay no federal income taxes, after deductions.
But if you think a guy making 25k a year should pay the same percentage as a guy making 250 million a year, you might want to question your morals.
KennesawJack| 1.29.13 @ 9:18AM
Arnie, is the guy making $25,000 year making that amount because he dropped out of high school? Because he wasn't motivated enough to learn a trade? Because he can't keep a job? Because he knocked up his girlfriend when he was 16, and 17, and 18, and 19? Because he can't speak English? Is the guy making $250 million making that because he studied and got a good education? Because he's willing to work the 80 or so hours a week it takes to get really wealthy? Because he risked everything he had on building a business? Because he waited until he was married and established before he created dependent children? What can possibly be "moral" about taking from the industriously productive the fruits of their labor and giving it to someone unwilling to do the things necessary to become a high income earner? What is "moral" about rewarding sloth? What is "moral" about rewarding imorality? What is moral about rewarding lack of ambition? I accept a moral responsibility to help those who "can't" help themselves. I do not accept a moral responsibility for those who could help themselves and choose not to. If you believe otherwise, you might want to question YOUR morals, not Tim's.
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 10:00AM
Oh yes, the world of conservatives, where everybody deserves their wealth and/or poverty. Did it occur to that the guy making 25k a year is doing so at his first job, trying to save for college because he doesn't have parents that can pay for it? Or maybe it's the old woman who was laid off from her desk job, to be replaced by a younger, less expensive employee, and now can only be hired by retail.
My point is that there are a myriad of reasons why people are rich or poor, the is lots of serendipity, chance, connections or not, and of course effort. And no gets to choose the family the we're born or which country they were born in, or which language is their mother tongue. So don't pretend that all the wealthy got rich by simply through only their effort.
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 10:02AM
*And no one gets to choose the family they were born into*
KennesawJack| 1.29.13 @ 10:07AM
They do get to choose whether to learn the language of the Country they emmigrate to.
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 10:09AM
Just to give you one example, my wife teaches the children of millionaires at a private university. None of these kids had especially high grades in high school, and none of them worked during high school. But they do need a degree to be somewhat acceptable. So they bounce from one university class to another until they pass all the easy ones, cheating all the time (business majors). And when they are done, they will have high paying positions, 6 figures easily at their daddy's company or a friend of the family's company, managing people that get paid a fourth of what they do, but actually have more knowledge of the business than the silver spoon baby. Think George W Bush.
KennesawJack| 1.29.13 @ 10:20AM
Jealous, much? Let's see now, "at a private university - pass all the easy ones, cheating all the time (business majors)". I had the good fortune to attend a highly selective private university (I paid for it by working and saving money with NO help from anyone - didn't want or need it) and I can't recall a single easy business course. Why do I think your were either a philosophy or English major? Sociology, maybe?
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 10:24AM
ha! Hardly Jack, I'm a computer science major. And I paid for it all myself, at a proud state school.
So are you an elitist? Or did you just have good fortune, more than others are born with?
KennesawJack| 1.29.13 @ 10:31AM
Fools also believe in "good fortune".
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 10:42AM
So you didn't have good fortune? These are your own words. Whoops.
KennesawJack| 1.29.13 @ 11:39AM
I'll give you that one but, in fairness, I used the term in an entirely different context than you did. My "good fortune" in being accepted into college was a result of my very hard work in high school. Nonetheless, poor choice of words on my part. However, you still come across as an underachieving, envious, leftist pollyanna.
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 12:05PM
Jack, my life is awesome, and I'm sure I came from more modest means than you, and had to work harder than you to get out of it. You come off as a white bread little rich boy, pampered by privilege ( perhaps upper middle class ).
KennesawJack| 1.29.13 @ 12:25PM
Try one of seven kids on a hardscrabble farm with a disabled Father and poor as a churchmouse. You, sir, are a f**king idiot and you come across exactly that way. By the way, it's not possible for a lefty's life to be awesome. It's only possible for them to think it is.
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 12:42PM
Settle down Jack. Well good for you. It seems our roots aren't that much different. I came from a completely broke farm, just 2 kids though, and then after losing our land, we moved to large inner city poverty? You sir come off as a person with anger issues. And computer science majors are smarter than business majors, just to clarify. And my life is still awesome.
KennesawJack| 1.29.13 @ 12:48PM
No, I have no anger "issues". I am, however, dismayed at what is becoming of what once was a Country were the individual had primacy over the State, were equality of opportunity was all that mattered, not equality of outcome.
Computer programmers that I know are girly man geeks. As to smart, I don't know, but, likewise, I don't know any dumb successful businessmen.
mike 3/505| 1.29.13 @ 7:00PM
I find your words hard to believe, considering your political outlook.
CJW| 1.29.13 @ 7:58PM
Purpie/arnie
Why is your wife working in a college for rich stupid kids? As a lefty liberal Dem should you not be teaching poor, inner city, disadvantage youth?
As a computer science major you are or will be working for the business major who will risk his capital to start a business to hire you.
Arnie| 1.30.13 @ 7:03AM
Actually she has, and does. She's taught poor minorities, helped them get jobs, and also taught disabled students. And sometimes she does this for free. And I work for other tech geeks that started their companies, and I have also helped the less fortunate for free with their computers and computer lessons. And we're athiests, isn't that weird?
CJW| 1.29.13 @ 6:05PM
What is the name of this private university that admits only stupid millionaire/rich kids that never worked? I was thinking of the Kennedys, Obama, Hillary, Bubba.
KennesawJack| 1.29.13 @ 10:05AM
Fools have three things in common. They believe in serendipity, chance, and they voted for Obamarx. Your rebuttal was pure drivel.
old white guy| 1.29.13 @ 10:19AM
arnie is one of the terminally stupid.
Peter| 1.29.13 @ 11:18AM
AH yes the world of liberalism where my property taxed doubled in a mere 4 years because the corrupt local Dem dominated council refuses to reform public union benefits or salaries and thinks we taxpayers are their personal piggy bank...but oh how we must be FAIR to those who refuse to work and live off welfare, and if we complain were greedy or racist... its times like this I pray for civil war and settle all the arguments once and for and progressive sitting in prisons
KennesawJack| 1.29.13 @ 11:40AM
Is Arnie on your council?
Pecos Pete| 1.29.13 @ 12:00PM
And The Stupid Communist Village Idiots: vtwin, Jack London, Violet ... and others who have been here but refuse to join in the intellectual defense of Communism that we require and easily defeat.
Peter| 1.29.13 @ 12:21PM
I would guess that is possible, if not there are plenty of his clones
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 12:00PM
Peter, there was a civil war that did take care of greedy and racist people, i.e. the plantation owner, that wanted lots of money at the expense of cheap labor, you know, the conservative dream. So I think it was resolved. Outright greed is bad. So is racism.
Taxes are in the constitution.
And your authoritarian roots are showing.
Peter| 1.29.13 @ 12:18PM
as are your Bolshevik roots, Arnie I guess when the white middle class is wiped out you will be happy,you know the liberal dream,, the con man in the White House has made a good start toward that goal.....
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 12:25PM
Actually the corporate elite you heap praise on, and your belief in trickle down, and anti unionism has led to the decline of the white middle class over the last 30 plus years. Woops.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 12:55PM
Tell it to the Hostess Workers who are out on their asses.
Tell it to the Former Airline Employees of at least 10 Former Airline Companies.
Tell it to the Former Textile Workers.
Tell it to the Former Steel Workers, the Former Electronics Workers, the Ship Builders who WOULD HAVE built John Kerry's Yacht, if they weren't Union.
Tell it to the Denizens of that one time Shining City on a Hill - Detroit.
Tell it to the Coal Miners who are losing their Jobs by the Thousands.
Tell it to the Thousands of Californians who USED TO have Jobs, before their Companies left that State for other States who APPRECIATE their Business, their Jobs, and the Sales Taxes that their Employees send to their Coffers.
You're not Stupid.
You're something far worse than that.
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 1:13PM
Hmm, so the government can promise you something, not give it to you, and you are angry.
But if a union negotiates a deal with private businesses, and the corporate elite walk out on that deal, then it's ok?
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 3:21PM
Unions don't negotiate anything.
They coerce.
Go Reread all of the examples that I already gave.
Peter| 1.29.13 @ 1:18PM
Corporate elite ahhh another marxist axiom??? Funny I'm a small business owner yes bust the public unions, with their lethargy work ethic and treating the tax payer that pays their salary with contempt. The SEIU thugs that YOU heap praise on are nothing but parasitessucking the middle class dry....
SUBVET| 1.29.13 @ 11:47AM
Jack.......why would you resond to this POS ?
Just a plant like the rest here.......when are the "free thinkers" here at TAS going to quit resonding to these morons.....it's like responding to a 5th grader about taxes.
KennesawJack| 1.29.13 @ 1:14PM
You're right (as usual). It's just that some days it gets to be a bit much.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 12:41PM
Why should I "Leave the Country" as you so Jackassasly proscribed, when I was PROMISED this, as a benefit for the 4 Years of my life, that I gave to this Country.
Here we have this Bunch of Arnies in Washington, FORCING everybody in to Government Health Care, while simultaneously Refusing Me the same Government Health Care that they PROMISED ME.
And, you're right. There is No Reason that Social Security should go Broke.
And it wouldn't be, if the same people you want to run every aspect of our lives, from the Cradle to our Last Rationing Board Approved PAIN PILL, hadn't STOLEN IT.
Idiot.
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 1:09PM
TLP, I'm in total agreement with you. That is messed up. You should get the medical attention you deserve. Washington always has enough money to wage war, and to buy overpriced weapons contracts, but they hardly seem to care about health care (including mental care) for the vets. The VA works well in general, but could be better.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 3:24PM
Thank You, Arnie.
I am never above giving praise to someone who says something right.
Maybe there's hope for you, yet.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 3:27PM
I'm assuming that (including mental care) was a dig.
I'll just chalk that up to a Cheetah, and its Spots.
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 6:09PM
No, TLP, I'm quite serious. That was not a dig. There's no shame in saying a soldier needs psychiatric help.
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 6:12PM
And just to be clear, I had an uncle that served in Vietnam, several tours. He never got the attention he needed. He tried to commit suicide several times. He eventually died of cancer in his forties, and most of the family is pretty certain these were from Agent Orange related symptoms.
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 6:14PM
He was a grunt in the thick of it.
CJW| 1.29.13 @ 6:00PM
What is the basis of the "morality" that justifies a progressive income tax rate instead of the same rate for all?
Arnie| 1.29.13 @ 6:24PM
CJW, the flat tax impacts the poor man much more significantly than the rich man. For the poor man, it may mean the difference of paying rent or getting his car fixed. For the rich man, it may mean owning one less house. Hence, it's really not fair. The rich man simply has more disposable income.
mike 3/505| 1.29.13 @ 7:06PM
Then quit spending so much (government) money. Tax everybody the same...what the revenue is from that...is the upper budget limit. That's the way I manage my finances...why does the government get a pass?
I'll double down on what Tim said....I don't believe in income tax at all. All taxes should either be "use" taxes, like the fuel tax...you pay for what you use. for stuff that "protects everybody," like the military & the court system...everybody pays the exact same amount...a head tax if you will...kids included. My life is worth no more than yours, why should I have to pay more.
If you insist on an income tax "rate" bases system...then I should be given more votes to exercise, as I am paying more of the bills. You don't get it both ways. Nobody who fails to pay into the kitty, should get a say in how the money is spent...combat veterans excepted. Combat tour gets you the lifetime franchise.
Arnie| 1.30.13 @ 3:43AM
Mike, it's obvious that a democracy with universal suffrage is causing you stress. Or maybe I miss understand you. Are you advocating actually denying the vote to people? I know many Republicans actually think this is the only way they can win elections, but you are better than that, right? After all it's not 1890.
CJW| 1.29.13 @ 7:53PM
Purpie/arnie
Maybe you did not understand the question. You are giving your definition of fairness. I asked you for the basis, such as religion, philosophy, political theory such as Marx, of your "morality" that it is more moral to have a progressive v. a flat income tax.
SUBVET| 1.29.13 @ 11:42AM
Tim......don't forget.........
The 2.3% Medical Excise Tax that began on January 1st is supposed to be “hidden” from the consumer, but it's been brought to the public’s attention by hunting and fishing store Cabela’s who have refused to hide it and are showing it as a separate line item tax on their receipts.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 1:01PM
When I was a teenager, and worked at my Stepfather's Gas Station, the Price of Gasoline was Posted on the top of each Pump.
It displayed the Price of the Gas, the Federal Gas Tax, the State Gas Tax, and the Final Price per Gallon. That was the Law.
Now, the opposite is True.
Gee, I wonder why.
vtwin| 1.29.13 @ 12:17PM
TLP, to say “50% …PAY NOTHING” is wrong. Everyone that is paid wages is taxed by the federal government at a minimum of 15.3% on every dollar earned up to $110 thousand while Romney paid only 9% in federal taxes on an income in excess of $10 million.
Also, are you a "conservative" complaining about being denied government provided healthcare?
capatolistmom| 1.29.13 @ 12:31PM
vttwin you are really really stupid. Romney paid taxes on INVESTMENT income. Income that had ALREADY been taxed once at a higher rate!!!You sound so evnious and jealous of others. Perhaps you should get a real job and work your way up the ladder for years and years and then make "big money" and because you make "big money" you go off on your own and HIRE lots of people and then you can pay 67% of your income in taxes to a government who thinks you make too much and have too much compared to others who haven't want to spend years and years working hard.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 1:03PM
He is that Stupid.
50% PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES.
None.
He knows that.
He just doesn't know how to get away from his Talking Points.
vtwin| 1.29.13 @ 1:24PM
Again, you ignore the 15.3% that EVERY "50%" wage earner pays on every dollar of income.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 3:29PM
NO INCOME TAXES.
What is it about that do you not understand?
CJW| 1.29.13 @ 5:57PM
vtwin
We did this before. Look at your paycheck, you pay one half of the 15.3%. The employer pays the other half. You pay it all only if you are self employed.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 1:09PM
He knows that. In fact, he has no problem with Liberal Poster Boy - Warren Buffet - paying the Same Rates as Romney. No problem with GM paying No Taxes. No problem with Unions paying No Taxes. No problem with Charlie Rangel and Al Sharpton paying No Taxes. And No problem with GE paying No Taxes.
Just Republicans.
He's a Dick, and should be treated as one.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 1:10PM
That was for capitolistmom.
vtwin| 1.29.13 @ 1:19PM
And, why is investment income taxed a lower rate than earned income? Answer, because the wealthy derive most of their income from investments and the most profitable investment the wealthy make is the investment in our political system (the tax law writers.)
Romney didn’t work his way up "the ladder," Romney’ daddy was a multimillionaire, Romney started at the TOP of “the ladder.”
Again, Romney didn’t pay "67%" Romney paid 9%.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 3:31PM
It's because they've already PAID INCOME TAXES on that Money.
Do you know anything?
Jack James| 1.29.13 @ 5:26PM
Governor Romney donated 100% of his inheritance to charity.
He also donates 15% of his income to charity every year, matching his taxes.
He did not start at the top of the ladder, he left Michigan and started his own business with his own money.
John Navratil| 1.29.13 @ 12:39PM
TLP,
Here's an idea I sent to my Rep. John "doesn't reply" Culberson.
Raise the Soc.Sec. retirement age by a couple of months per year.... forever.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 1:16PM
I have a better idea.
Open everywhere for Drilling, and use the Money that would pour into the Federal Treasury to make Social Security SOLVENT.
Just don't hold your breath.
California could Balance her Books, if they were getting Royalty Money from the Oil Extraction off their Coast.
Ditto all of the other Coastal States.
flyovermark| 1.29.13 @ 11:43AM
Here's an idea. How about we demand the federal government restrict it's spending to programs allowed it in the Constitution by the enumerated powers, and let the individual states decide for themselves if progressive government is sustainable?
mike 3/505| 1.29.13 @ 7:12PM
Hear Hear! I did some back of the envelope math during the previous debt limit fiasco a year ago....We currently borrow around 40 cents of every Federal dollar spent. According to the big numbers in the budget back then, if we eliminated all the "non-enumerated" programs & agencies....that would save us....wait for it.....wait for it....40 cents of every dollar. We are going further into debt, just to fund stuff that is unconstitutional in the first place!
Pecos Pete| 1.29.13 @ 8:13AM
Sequestration works for me.
Maxwell| 1.29.13 @ 8:37AM
As always I have a question. What happens if we let Social Security Administration just go out of business? That is, for people that are over 65, you will still be served as always by SS, monthly check and all. Those that are between 55 & 65, served at reduced rates & had better make plans to make other options, there is no longer a deduction going to be made from your check. Those below 55, here is your money back, what ever you put in. Make your own plans as the government can no longer afford to service you.
I have not seen anyone propose this, but it is high time the government get out of the retirement business. After a while Social Security Administration closes their doors and turns off the lights. The above ages are just picked out of thin air, I'm sure they can be adjusted. The outcome should be the same, get out of the retirement business.
mike 3/505| 1.29.13 @ 7:09PM
I have proposed that very thing...multiple times...on this site. But if it happens...i will gladly give you credit for it and buy ya a beer...or nine into the bargain.
DerKrieger| 1.29.13 @ 9:00AM
I have a suggestion that ought to appeal to Rep. Ryan and all good government types who appreciate transparency and trust the American people.
Put the entire budget of the US online for all Americans to see. No department, bureau, or office not engaged in national security should be exempt from posting its budget dwn to the paperclip.
The public can't protest over specific budget excesses because there is zero transparency. We simply have no idea how much is being spent and on what. We may know fr example that the Dept. of Education has a $25 BILLION budget but it's hard to object when we have no idea where any of it goes.
So make it all public, easily searchable, and allow the public to root out wasteful spending. I guarantee you we will find a lot of it.
Both political parties will of course object because so much money is funneled to their pet constituencies. I'd love to know how many billions are funneled to Lefty organizations determined to undermine our republic.
I read once that 50% of the EPA budget was doled out as grants to environmentalist orgs. The same groups that sue the EPA and private businesses routinely. The same grous that fight against cheap, bountiful fossil fuels.
Well, let that info be transparent so we can stop it.
capatolistmom| 1.29.13 @ 12:34PM
Der - this is one of the best ideas yet. Start a petition to congress and pick 5 of the most offensive areas!!! Lets see how they are spending our money!! How about those Las Vegas seminars????
Pecos Pete| 1.29.13 @ 2:51PM
And a 30 minute speech by King O today? Ridiculous waste of money for a trip to make a speech he could have delivered from the Taxpayers House.
Derek Leaberry| 1.29.13 @ 9:06AM
The military has become institutionally left-wing and is an enemy of conservative and Christian values. Let's gut the military.
OP4| 1.29.13 @ 9:21AM
Not sure where you get this information. Certainly not the case among the ranks.
The DOD does need some serious cuts - particularly in procurement and the 800k in civilian employees. But, if I know politicians, they will protect the civilians and contractors and cut actual troops.
Derek Leaberry| 1.29.13 @ 10:13AM
The military has rolled over for Obama with homosexuals and women in combat. And it has practiced affirmative action for years. The military is left-wing.
Drunken Sailor| 1.29.13 @ 11:26AM
Like OP4 stated, it is not the case among the ranks. The cabinet positions of the DOD may be left wing, but not the military in general.
Whig| 1.29.13 @ 10:06AM
Here is the problem.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/.....-year-job/
No one in this country has ever seen something like the massive inflation and high unemployment that failed states have demonstrated in the past. With western social democracies massive quantitative easing coupled with massive dollar deficits, a systematic world wide bubble is being formed. Debts that cannot be repaid, won't be and thus the current fiat paper money system will fail.
However, like a Phoenix, the productive assets and people will remain and perhaps construct a better world out of the ashes. It is said that God looks out for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America. Let us hope that is true.
RJ| 1.29.13 @ 11:41AM
The Federal Government has bankrupted the nation's future, won't pass a budget and won't get spending under control. Octobama prefers to spend tax dollars on funding Brazilian oil companies and tax credits to non-Americans who don't pay taxes. The insanity cannot go on much longer. There is no good ending to this story.
Who Knows?| 1.29.13 @ 12:06PM
I have news for those who think sequestration is the answer.
Ain’t going to happen.
And, even if it “does” seem to take place, it’ll only be de jure, and de facto NOTHING will change.
Lucy and the football---for you naïve folks out there.
Also, how many people remember Pogo? As a matter of fact, not many----surely NOT a majority of voters.
Forget history---we are doomed: there’s a big “meeting” about to occur.
“We have met the enemy, and it is us.”
By the way---that very saying was on Jeopardy the other day, and no contestant knew it.
Yup---Americans, as a whole: forgetful, unto a HUGE awakening.
vtwin| 1.29.13 @ 12:38PM
“Up from $2.9 trillion from the Reagan era?” The nation debt incurred over the 200+ years preceding Reagan was less that $1 trillion. That's right, Reagan tripled the nation debt in just eight years!
And, it is Reagan policies of low taxes, especially on the wealthiest, continued through the first Bush Administration, both of the second Bush Administrations, and Obama first term that are the primary drivers of our growing debt NOT Medicare or Social Security.
John Navratil| 1.29.13 @ 12:53PM
vtwin,
I love this! Reagan sent a balanced budget to Tip O'Neill each year he was in office and each time it was declared D.O.A.
You may recall the budget has only been balanced by a Republican House during Clinton's presidency. (Don't try to get any conservatives to defend any budgets during the Bush administration.)
Pelosi passed the last budget that has been passed (thanks to Harry Reid's dereliction) and it has been funded by C.R.s ever since. Meaning that Obama budget authorizations have not changed since then, only the total amount.
The Constitution (not that anyone pays much attention to it, any more) requires all spending bills to original in the House. Ask Paul Ryan how to pass a budget when the Senate will not act according to the law.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 1:20PM
You're confusing him.
You could tell him that JFK said that "Lower Taxes would Lift All Boats" and he would say that "We don't want that. We need to Lower the Sea Levels".
He's that Stupid.
vtwin| 1.29.13 @ 1:54PM
Bush lowered taxes in 2001 and again in 2003 and taxes remained lower until 2012. And what happen? Well, we enter stagnation in 2006 so Bush sent everyone $300 checks, then we enter recession in 2007, and a depression in 2008 and the national debt when from $5 trillion to over $16 trillion today. Now, that’s falling "Sea Levels."
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 3:35PM
It's funny that you chose 2007 and 2008 for the beginning of the End of our Economy.
Those were the only years that Bush had Both Houses of Congress controlled by Democrats.
Coincidence?
I don't think so.
vtwin| 1.29.13 @ 1:39PM
"Reagan sent a balanced budget to Tip O'Neill" that Reagan knew wouldn’t pass and didn't veto any unbalanced budget that came back. Wow, that is impressive!
The Replications controlled the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the White House for the first 6 YEARS of the second Bush Presidency, and the results?
"Don't try to get any conservatives to defend any budgets during the Bush administration." of course not but conservative voted for the a**hole both times!
Pecos Pete| 1.29.13 @ 2:54PM
Stupid Communist Village Idiot vtwin: I wouldn't have voted for Bush if the dumbocrats had nominated anyone trust worthy. Big Money Al and Traitor John didn't qualify as trust worthy.
TLP| 1.29.13 @ 3:37PM
Why did he Know that they wouldn't be passed?
Was it because of the Democrats?
Do you ever think, before you post?
John Navratil| 1.29.13 @ 4:24PM
vtwin,
The President cannot enter legislation into the House. The budget process is that the President tells them what he wants. O'Neill wanted to spend and a overwhelmingly Democrat House and slightly Republican Senate passed unbalanced budgets. I'm sure you would have loved Reagan to veto wouldn't you. It may have been interesting but we'll never know if it would be sustained. That was then when the total debt was less that a single year deficit today, yet responsible people were concerned that we were losing control of the debt.
Those six Bush years you refer to is why the Tea Party exists today. Conservatives (I've not been a Republican since Dick Darman and Bush-1 presided over the largest tax increase in the history of this nation at that time) screamed murder and for all that spending, Bush gets excoriated by you Lefties for vetoing SCHIP - he feared it would federalize health care. He lost the House and Senate in 2006 in large part from losing the conservative base.
By the way, the Bush tax cuts increased revenue from the wealthy, reduced it for the poor and middle class and didn't explode the deficits. The peak deficit years were 2003-2005. By 2007, those deficits were at one-third of their peak. In contrast, that deficit tripled in the first year of the Pelosi Congress, before the recession, to $458 billion. That was the smallest deficit since and larger than EVERY deficit before it.
.....
John Navratil| 1.29.13 @ 4:24PM
.....
And yes, I voted for the "a**hole" both times, just as I put a clothes pin on my nose and voted for McCain and Romney. The alternative was, undeniably, worse. Unfortunately for me, not all conservatives voted. I'm sure you are pleased. Also unfortunate is that you haven't yet run out of other people's money. It won't be pretty.
vtwin| 1.29.13 @ 5:51PM
The Bush tax-cuts and the unpaid for Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for nearly 50% of the national debt by 2019. The lost revenues attributable to the Bush economic collapse about 20% with less than 10% added by Obama stimulus spending food stamps included. In fact if not for the Bush failures both foreign and domestic our national debt would be less in 2019 than Bush inherited from Clinton in 2000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....-deficits/
Holding your nose is one thing, try opening your eyes.
John Navratil| 1.29.13 @ 10:34PM
vtwin,
Complete bullshit! You are making this up! Revenues are not at their peak, but revenues spiked up after the tax cuts and are still higher than when Bush took office. Cite something a bit more authoritative than WaPo - A gao or whitehouse budget report, perhaps.
If you opened YOUR eyes you wouldn't step in such a steaming pile of cow flop.
John Navratil| 1.29.13 @ 10:34PM
vtwin,
Complete bullshit! You are making this up! Revenues are not at their peak, but revenues spiked up after the tax cuts and are still higher than when Bush took office. Cite something a bit more authoritative than WaPo - A gao or whitehouse budget report, perhaps.
If you opened YOUR eyes you wouldn't step in such a steaming pile of cow flop.
Hardcard| 1.29.13 @ 2:15PM
You are falling into the trap set by these paid trolls of media matters. Ignore these soros shills and they will go away, notice how they come to each others defense when confronted it's all part of the plan to discredit opposition to their socialist control of our country. Defeat soros.
vtwin| 1.29.13 @ 5:53PM
Hear no evil see no evil...
cicero| 1.29.13 @ 4:46PM
Kreiger - you can't put the budget on line because the Federal Gov hasn't had a budget for over 4 years.
This whole charade about sequestration is a ruse. The Rs will cry that defense will be gutted. (Which it will be) The Dems will cry about the social programs. The solution is to cut the expenditures across the board by 5% per year. Each percentage cut saves about $360 billion. At 5%, the budget is balanced from year one. The growth in the economy will provide the revenues to pay down the accumulated debt. If you want to do the country a real favor, cut spending across the board at a higher rate. No one can tell me that each department cannot find 5% of fat in their budgets (if they have one).
John Navratil| 1.29.13 @ 5:28PM
cicero,
Your would certainly be a solution. It may even the the best possible solution, but it does equate the value of the Dept. of Energy and the Dept. of Education with the Dept. of Defense.
cicero| 1.29.13 @ 5:50PM
John - I understand. The real solution is to completely cut out the Depts of Education, Energy, Housing, Commerce, etc., etc. But that cannot be done any time soon. A cut in Defense by 5% surely beats a cut to Defense by 50%. The sequestration gambit was put in place to force the ship of fools to do something. They never thought that any of them would have been so idiotic to let it get to this point. However, they were operating on the assumption that both parties and president all wanted what was best for this country. I am not so sure that that is so.
In the alternative, a 5% percent cut across the board does the least amount of damage. Most departments would only need to roll back the raises given to their worker (?) over the past 4 years, or cut back the number of employees to 2007 levels.
sameth| 1.31.13 @ 3:25AM
I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do, Great70 dot com -