Today in Austin, Texas the Comptroller General of the USA said in so many words this country is headed to financial disaster if government spending is not reined in. In the article I read the author warned of a demographic tsunami headed right at us. The baby boomer generation will soon be signing up for social security and medicare. The article also pointed out we are recklessly borrowing from foreign governments. The article I am referring to was posted on the internet today.
David Walker (the Comptroller) said he will be touring the country between now and the 08 election trying to get people fired up enough to put pressure on the Congress to address this issue. You notice I said the Congress. We put to much blame on the President. The President can ask for money from the Congress but they do not have to give it to him. I feel the responsibility lies squarely on the back of Congress period.
Howard Dean said the other day if the democrats regain control of the congress they could still not get the troops out of Iraq, that would have to be the President. I about fell out of my chair has he not heard of the War Powers Act and a little thing called providing money for the war, where does that come from the moon? It sure does not come from the President. Ask Gerald Ford when Congress pulled the plug on the money going to fight the Viet Nam War.
I don't care how you slice it or dice it Congress will not, does not, have the guts to reing in spending. They are political animals who think they have to hand out goodies to thier districts to get reelected. A balanced budget amendment will make them be accountable. I think they would be relieved if it was ever passed. Then they could tell their constituens the money is not there to provide that road smallville, USA says they have to have. I hope unity08 will put this at the tope of the platform, without it we are headed for bankruptcy. If you think the US government cannot go bankrupt you better go read some history it has happened before.
Ask France.
That same Congress has to initate such amendment... ....don't hold your breath, OK.
Bill"for what we are together"
Bill: Thamks for the comment, you are probably right, but I still hope unity08 makes it their number l priority and they will garner enough support in the election to force the two parties to push it through. If they do not I believe down the road the government will simply default on their debt and we will be in for very rough times.
As much as the Federal Reserve is reviled by the media (especially during recessions), it seems to me that they do a pretty good job of managing monetary policy. Their independence of all 3 branches of government also seems to work pretty well.
Why not a similar (but seperate) "Fiscal Board of Governors" to manage the overall size of the U.S. Budget from year to year. Whether and how much we are in deficit or surplus seems like a number that should be adjusted depending on economic and other conditions - rather than simply being carved in stone. Congress would be left to divy up the fixed amount of money allocated to them each year - like an allowance!!!
I agree that it is completely unrealistic to expect Congress and/or the President to manage government spending effectively. History has proven this time and again.
As far as getting our present (or any) Congress to enact such an ammendment - I think you could apply the "why try?" philosophy to just about anything proposed in here.
But I, for one, am not giving up the fantasy (yet) that the proverbial people - through the internet and the ballot box - can change their government!
...of sounding like a defender of the status quo, I certainly don't want taxing and spending matters left in the hands of unelected officials. I too am relatively happy with the work the Fed has done over the last decade or so. Greenspan seems to have had a keen sense of how far they could go in certain directions to fine-tune the economy. History will tell how the new guy does...
I will make the observation that despite all the hurdles, corruption, mafeasance, etc., the people do still have a significant amount of control to be exercised at the ballot box. The fact that they don't, or that they often do so irresponsibly, doesn't change the reality that the power is there.
When the people begin educating themselves and performing their civic duty by involving themselves intimately in the political process, I believe things will change. If we ever get to the point of 80% voter participation and the governemtn doesn't swing to the popular will, that's when I'll be willing to open my gun safe and head to the streets.
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
Negative... manipulation of the prime interest rate by the fed is a matter for the Supreme Court as a violation of the constitution... For this is enabling the few riches and foreign interests to manipulate the stock market... For only American citizens can own United States stocks and property... As well this will soon be fixed... - Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"
Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I realize this is technically "off-topic," but!...:-) - Mark, you bring up an interesting point - one that I think is taken for granted too often and deserves closer examination. It also takes us (yet again) back to campaign financing and how it influences elections (because it is also tied to Pork and the Budget Deficit).
Does Voter Turnout automatically equal People Power?
Suppose the U.S. had mandatory voting (like Australia or Brazil.). I'm not just being a knee-jerk cynic when I state my belief that this would not solve the problem.
Look at Seniors. They are arguably the most active, informed voting block in this country. They get better responses on their issues than the poor do, for example. But they still play second fiddle to the drug companies and HMO's when it comes to health care. Medicare, and its recent drug benefit "upgrade" are classic examples of special interests feeding at the trough. Seniors are mad as hell, but they can't compete with those kinds of bucks. On election day they get the same choice as the rest of us: Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dumber. Both tied to campaign money more than the voters who check the ballots.
No matter what percentage of the people who vote, we get real power for only about 2 months every couple of years: Between labor day and November 7th. The guy shaking your hand on November 6th won't return your call 2 days later because he is busy raising BIG money for his next election cycle.
***
To change the equation on the budget deficit, health care, alternative energy, darned near anything, I'm sure we agree on publicly funded campaigns (and possibly district reform and candidate threshold reform).
My worry is that it will take 2 or 3 presidential cycles for the system to be reformed in a meaninful way (even - optimistically assuming we are successful). That sure is a lot of red ink in the meantime.
A Balanced Budget Ammendment or a Board of Fiscal Governors (Ammendment) are both tacit admissions of defeat - that the system doesn't work. But I'd rather stop the hemmoraging with a dirty rag instead of letting the patient die while I find a clean one.
For better or worse the Fed is a naecessary evil. Can you see Congress trying to do what the fed does? I cannot, theoretically they probably should but this is not a utopia. If we had true campaign finance reform that took all the money opportuntities away from our elected leaders we might could do away with the fed but not now.
Trombone Erik. Right on. You scored a bullseye. My faith in this unity08 is being restored.
Erik, you cover a few at once.
Medicare was rather sensitive for me in that I'm making that shift right now and it is very difficult to get past the anger and make a choice. Thanks to the insurance lobby choice cost 250% more than HMO and non medicare cost 500% more than HMO. Governement pays the insurance company directly for the HMO so they get the same revenue in every plan.
But more to the point here, the issues like the national debt, campaign finaning, healthcare, etc. are most dependent on our accepting the fact that we have a broad range of common interest and plenty of flexibility to develop acceptable solutions. But the first step (in the proverbial 1000 miles) is to find that icinic message that will bring the massive majority to the same starting point to run in the same direction as we would. We can not run a campaign bloated on details and a litany of positions that have been divisive before.
A movement can target those poisoning our political process by attacking them on every front they have violated. Like any war, the problems are resolved after the war is won. To fight the war with a majority engagement, that majority needs to "name" the 'cross-they-bear' to carry it that far.
(If I knew ecuminical metaphors, I'd use them)
Bill"for what we are together"
As long as politicians on both sides of the aisle do not comprehend the easily understood
Law of Unintended Consequences, spending will escalate and foreign ownership of the
resultant debt will furthur erode the ability of future administrations to act in the national
intrests within the global community.
We must realize as a nation that American hegemony is decreasing at an increasing rate,
not because we don't have superior weapons, but because we are losing the battle to compete in the global economic arena. Ask yourself two question, namely, What goods
for every day use do we produce in this country, and, how do my local educational
institutions perform?
I think that a Balanced Budget pledge is perhaps the single most supported common issue in most polls conducted regarding American Government finances.
A Balanced Budget is a no-brainer and should be a primary plank of Unity08's platform. It is widely supported by the public and adds to Unity's stance as a voice for the centrist.
I hate to be a lone voice in the wilderness, but..
A mild budget deficit isn't really a bad thing at all.. Especially if it's nicely below the rate of GDP growth. Debt as a % of GDP (the only measure of actual significance) would continuously shrink over time, the government would have freedom to spend at will when needs arise instead of adding to the politics of the debate a counter-measure that'd require lowering expenses or raising taxes, and it'd give the Federal Reserve one more tool to help sop up liquidity -- selling bonds.
Disclaimers: As a conservative-leaning moderate that I even come to Unity08 means I'm as upset as the rest of you over pork spending, so when I refer to spending when needs arise I'm thinking natural disasters, wars, etc that need clean bills for spending passed right away. Taking time to debate which favored cow gets sacrificed would be inefficient.
Also, I've seen a lot of Fed Reserve hating, but as an economist by training, it's unfounded. The liquidity part I noted is important as liquidity has the potential to douse the inflationary fires with gasoline and the quickest way to sop it up is a mix between higher overnight rates and bonds, bonds that get used for deficit spending.
I'm just trying to inject some more moderation here; most all of the above can be found in most every college economics text. Several of you have expressed satisfaction with the good work of Volker, Greenspan, and now Uncle Ben, so it's not directed at everybody. I think reducing the budgetary issue down to a black-and-white "Deficit spending is evil, we must always pay as you go" reduces the issue to the lowest-common-denominator and ignores a huge amount of pesky details on how the economy works and how the government plays a role, both in growing it and keeping it from running out of control.
Mring - What do you think about a mandated federal balanced budget, beginning a lock box on the social security trust fund's future contributions, and then printing the national debt 10% a year for 10 years to pay off the national debt.