Fiscal responsibility is a broad concern of the political middle that is simply not being addressed by those in power. I think those of us organizing in the center should make it a core principle/demand.
A couple ways to tackle this are to (1) enact legislation to curb the earmarking of pork-barrel projects that has gotten *way* out of control in the last few years, and (2) bring back the pay-as-you-go budget rules that worked reasonably well in the 90s in controlling spending. Those were the rules that required new spending or tax cuts to be matched with equivalent offsets.
What else should we do in the area of fiscal responsibility? Should we make this a primary focus?
This needs to be out theme song, load it up with populist jingo, people will love it ...
It should be clear to all of us, that every discussion we have on every topic that we can dream up all comes back to one sticking point. DEBT
If I as a human, have steady income of 50,000 and have lived my life conservativly and planned well, than I can have some great plans on how to grow and improve and enjoy all kinds of great prospects in the future.
But that is not the case, we have been misled .... BADLY
I now find I am a human with a steady income of 50,000 who has a condemable house and 600,000 in credit card debt.
Thats where we are.
Any planning we do must be based upon that reality.
Invest, invest, invest .... Invest what?
We simply cant cut back and send our meager pennies to the banker, we can obviously attempt to mix some growth factors into digging our way out of debt, but we have to be really careful that we arent sold another plan that just makes it worse.
My fear is that the banker is ready to step in and foreclose. For all we know its already happened.
That sad fact may be reflected in our idiotic trade policies, our bizzare immigration stance, H1Bs ect ....
Kerry said this and then backed off ... Its hard to negotiate with your banker when the payment is past due.
China holds a staggering percentage of governement bonds being issued, Japan holds a disproportionate amount of the rest. We americans hold a tiny sliver. As minority shareholders we see the benefit.
But what if .....
What if we bought the corporation, Instead of investing our IRAs into stock in amalgamated widget and certificates of deposit in Bank of Mao Mart ... What if we pooled our assets into treasuries and bought the whole damn thing for ourselves ... Shut the Chinese out of leveraging ignorant trade deals on our spineless self interested leadership ...
Maybe I need another coffee but it seems to me that If Howard Dean can find a market for Democracy bonds than there damn well might be one heck of a market for American bonds .....
If ever there was a non-issue it is FR. It assumes the great American nation is no richer than William Gates. It assumes there is a thing Uncle Same owns called a "checkbook". It assumes his checkbook is just like mine.
The truth is Uncle Sam owns a central bank, a mint and a Congress all its own -- one that makes the rules on money, bankruptcy, bailout, recovery, war, war prevention and peace.
Franklin Roosevelt warned that if we did not enact and sustain with material wealth and the money to buy it an economic bill of rights, we would have hell to pay after he died. He said it. He died. We failed to act. Now we have hell to pay.
If this centrist political effort does not want to pay for economic rights for Americans it may as well quit right now.
The only way to pay for these rights (to a job and to a life) is with the help of the central bank and Congress to raise necessary federal spending and reduce taxes to only those necessary to prevent hyperinflation.
If you don't get it, write me at john.gelles@gmail.com I'll draw you a picture.
JG, thinking like that makes me want to run out and put every cent I have into the euro tommorow. I'd settle for Japanese Yen. Your on a irreversable devaluation spiral with no hope of bailing. Scary.
How about the people that seem to think it's their right to live off of everyone else? I don't mind my tax dollars going to someone that needs a help up. But if you choose to do nothing and live off of everyone else. We shouldn't have to pay for that.
I totally agree with you, I think some one on welfare with one or two children, should not get More welfare if they have more children. If you can't take care of the ones you have stop having them. And to stay on any assistance they should show that they are either in school, trying to find jobs etc. Promote work for Life, not welfare for life
the Balanced Budget Amendment? We were told we would never balance the federal budget without one. Well depending on your point of view we balanced a budget without an amendment. Now we borrow like crazy driving up interest rates for everybody and passing a UOM (You Owe Me) to our offspring.
The budget is too far out of kilter for pay-as-you-go at this time but restraint is needed.
The importance here is to select a person of honesty, integrity and intelligence. With these characteristics, a person can consider the facts make an analysis and follow through to decisions. Such a person also has to select people with like characteristics to form a cabinet and a circle of confidants and advisors. Such a lineup likely could not be politicians since all politicians have demonstrated their honesty and integrity and, by and large, have come up short. This is true of business and industry whose leaders have shown their lack of such characteristics by their greed, fraudulent ways and disregard for the American people as a whole.
If Unity08 can get this done for President and vice-President in 2024, the push will be on for citizens of states to project the same for Senators and Representatives. Local elections will have to follow.
Go U08!!
Budgets mean nothing in the modern world. Events such as war, natural disaster and economic changes forced by enviornmental conditions will control future budgets far more than the government. In fact, the costs of these things are so high that it is essential we immediately save trillions and automate as much of the institutional bureacracy as possible using video conferencing systems, bulldozing down as much that can be replaced by internet based communications and process in order to save money and prepare for future events we cannot control.
Earn, you have watch "war games" too many times. Its a kids flick.. not to be taken seriously.
yes, that movie and 500 other movies made since. Like Katrina, Iraq and modern slavery in "Communist" China is not reality? And that the American way of life like we experience today will be reality much longer... thanks to those who ignore the rape and pillage of our most critical social functions in the name of profit... healthcare, education, legislation and now national security...
We must not be distracted in this fight - not be confused by those that attempts to infultrate this blog and others like it. Confusing the reform resolutions being submitted to the people. This an act of propoganda warfare in an attempt to pit conservative against liberal, isolationist against expansionist. We must recognize these bloggers as the enemy, those that would saturate this communication with hatred, detailed debate - destracting the people from the truth....
That is the issue. The're only showing that the conservitives and liberals are debating amonst themselves. Each party in order to hold the middle trys to encompass all issues under one tent, but its not working for them.
Earn, I mean no disrespect but I think you need to take a bit more time with your written comments. I have read 4 or 5 of you posts and to be honest, I really don’t understand them. Could you be a little more specific, concrete and concise? I am sure you know what you are talking about, but frankly it looks like you are off your meds.
Fiscal responsibility is like asking for national security to not be in the same legislation as immigration? Can't happen until legislative gridlock is reformed by have the Supreme Court demand the defogging of legislation by both parties who are bunching legislation together with pork and preventing any and all recent reform legislation by working in concert to deny the majority of what we want...
No problem, I guess my message... to be clear... is that it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to step in and stop this and several other constitutional violations by the two party process now working in concert to prevent reforms demanded by the people... is that clear enough?
Much better Earn, however I don’t think the two party processes is working in concert to prevent reforms demanded by the people. Rather I think the two party process has been weighted down by the tens of thousands of procedural codes in acted. So this has caused the two party process and the 3 branch-governmental system to cease from effectively performing.
Hence there is no reasonable response form Washington to meet our needs. The origins of how Washington originally paid for everything were in tariffs. Taxes were fighting words to the Founding Fathers. Washington from the start never had any concept of fiscal responsibility. The system then as is now was set up by Lawyers for Lawyers. You can pay us now or you can pay us later; but by god, if you want anything done “pay here”.
No the system is completely broken and running on auto pilot.
Start by reforming the election process than we can tackle the fiscal process.
Sorry but I was not aware of any pay as you go system in the 90’s. Also I distinctly remember my dad bitching about the pork-barrel politics of the Nixon Administration in 1969.
Pork is fundamentally hard to stop, so long as the politicians are writing specifics into the legislation and binding everything together into omnibus bills -- this guarantees that everyone will scratch everyone else's back all at the same time. Sometimes I wonder if we could replace each government agency with a cluster of private companies that all have to compete for contracts but comply with standards.
The concept of "pay as you go" has a lot of merit but it fails to account for future shifts in tax revenue, as the population and economy changes and as people react to the new tax incentives by altering their behavior to avoid taxes.
People need to be shown where their tax money goes and how much. Every slice of the tax dollar pie needs to regularly prove its worth to the country or face reductions and/or cancellation. We need to make it easier for watchdog groups to discover bureaucratic waste and bring them to the attention of the voting public through online polls and other means.
Also, it would good to have some kind of partitioning law to prevent situations like the raiding of social security. I'm disgusted with both parties over this one: the Republicans for using the insolvency bogeyman to pitch privatized accounts right when the stock market seemed to be healthy again, and the Democrats for failing to make a big stink about how this (a) hides the true size of the deficit, and (b) worsens the national debt.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury—with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by dictatorship.”
–Alexander Tyler (in England 400 years ago)
In order to maintain our liberty, we must all stop sucking at the fed gov't teat.
To me fiscal responsibility means a balance budget.
So, forget the pork. We like our own pork and hate everyone else's. Forget the Supreme Court because
there's no sense theorizing here. Fiscal responsibility means a balanced budget amendment. Anything less than that menas there's a 103% chance that overspending will continue.
If a balanced budget means that if you want to keep all of the programs that the government has then be prepared for higher taxes. If not, be prepared to see services cutback or eliminated. If you don't like either of those options then you're not for fiscal responsibility - my opinion.
Has the debt reached a level where it can't be paid off? I would rather attempt to pay it off than throw up my hands and sidestep this issue; but, how many of us REALLY want a balanced budget? Have we become to accustomed to debt-fianance government largesse?
Eventually, the bill will become due. Is it past due?
What's everyone got to say?
Chris asks the very good question "Has the debt reached a level where it can't be paid off?"
I ponder this exact thing. It seems no one even attempts to address the issue of what we eventualy mean to do about the accumulated debt. It seems a fairly futile approach to fight over balancing a budget (which should be self evident and not need debate) without dealing with the accumulated debt.
I for one belive it will never be paid. Our leadership never had any intention of paying it. They are struggling just to deal with paying the interest on it and with rising interest that struggle becomes worse almost daily. Its intersting to note that nearly all of the debt is held in foreign hands. Does this further damage us domesticly? I think so but noone seems daring enough to touch this topic .... shhh, lets be very quiet and cross our fingers hoping something good comes of this ... NOT.
I say we need to make as much noise as possible, demand answers!
How high is the national debt now? $7trillion? That would be $7,000,000,000,000. How much money is that? A million dollars in a stack of 10 dollar bills is about 2 feet high, a billion dollars in 10 dollar bills is taller than the Empire State Building, a trillion dollars in 10 dollar bills is 1,000 times the height of the Empire State Building, and we owe 7 of those.
The budget should be balanced immediately, without raising taxes.
There are those who will say the "moderate" position precludes spending cuts, because Republican proposals for even the most moderate of cuts ($50 billion is only 2% of %2.5 trillion) were labeled "extreme" and "uncaring" by Democrats.
Yet the federal budget is now about 40% larger than when Bill Clinton left office. Was government too small then? Not according to 70+ percent of Americans who thought it was too big.
A moderate government could find better places to cut than the Republican cuts at aimed at the most helpless members of society. Start by stopping throwing hundreds of billions of dollars away on an unpopular war.
How can a Country that forcibly extracts money from its citizenry, not have enough?
Take the national debt of 8 trillion dollars, divided by 250 million Americans. That’s
over $30,00 of debt for every man, woman, and child in the United States. This is less than “not acceptable”, it is outrageous. I handle my personal debt, but please stop generating more debt for me to pay off.
Chris’s question "Has the debt reached a level where it can't be paid off?"
The answer is no.
We are still below the highest point of “National Debt as a percentage of Gross National Product”. That was sometime during WWII. I got the information from a “Bash Bush” web site. The guy seems pretty smart. He has a PhD. in some field of science. But he is defiantly not unbiased.
See this link and you can run your own numbers. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Few politicians in recent years have shown any interest in actually addressing the issue of debt financing and how it effects us.
One that comes to mind at present is Rep. Ron Paul who seems to be a wealth of knowledge on this subject.
The link below is just one of many you can find at his website detailing the matter at hand.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst051506.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_congrec.htm
Interestingly (or scarily if you are into conspiracy theory) the last representative that made any effort to delve into this area is now sitting in jail on questionable and surprisingly petty (by todays standards) charges. Jim Trafficants informative writings should not be dismissed and are also available on line.
http://www.traficant.com/
It seems something is fundamenataly askew in this area and that to a large degree.
What do you all think?
With regard to the debt, Mr. Glover's comments ignores the point of absolute dollars. Would we prefer to owe 2% of $100 or 2% or $1,000? I prefer the former to the latter. Percentages are deceiving. Why do you think they are so invogue with our elected offcials?
In terms of per person debt, it might be best to state it terms of a family. If we each owe $30,000 (actually it's $28,000 and change) then my share of that debt (a family of four) is $120,000 (using Greg's #). In family financial terms, that's enough to send both of my kids to college. For those of you on a budget, that's $798.36
monthly for thirty years or $287,409.60 over the term of the loan. That is not chump change and it's a lot worse than the percentage statement.
It's one thing to say that a family of four owes $120,000 and it's another to ignore the interest on the loan over a thirty year span. Our national debt is not 8.3 trillion. It is 8.3 trillion plus the interest. It's closer to 20 trillion over 30 years. Let's ask ourselves - Can we pay that off?
How about creating a national mortgage to eliminate the debt over a thirty year span? We do it with our home mortgages and we can do it with the debt. We would more than make our money back from the reduction of our childrens' mortagages, car loans, etc.
Chris:
Why dont we americans buy the debt rather than pay it off? If we controlled the debt, not only would government interest payment be kept domestic (they would pay us instead of the chinese) to keep the economy afloat but my thinking is it would do us a world of good when it comes to negotiating trade policy.
To Nomad1:
Can everyone come up with 30k for each member of the household? Probalby not. Can everyone come up with $798 a month? Probably not. Can we pay this debt off? You'll have to answer yes to one of the two questions above if you thik that we can.
I think that one question that needs to be answered is Who is financing the public debt? And what happens to our government when they decide to stop financing this debt?
What will our government do WHEN the foreign investors currently financing the public debt decide that some other investment looks more attractive than US treasuries?
The current venue of politicians don't care. They are figuring that they won't be in office when this happens.
I'm not saying PAY IT OFF. I am saying purchase it. There is a big difference.
It is widely rumoured that people of means are rapidly packing up and leaving as our currency spiral unfolds. What if we gave them a reason to stay?
There are also a lot of people of means that have chosen to stay of their own obligation. Not everyone is destitute although many are, thanks in part to the sale of american sovereignity by our glorious leadership.
Meanwhile a lot of us in the middle have 401Ks that combined with the affluents big chunk of the pie could bring the nations debt home. If we bring the debt home we are in MUCH better shape to control our own destiny, a path much preffered to the endless war route we are on now.
Lets think radical here.
Mandate that in order to recieve preferential tax xtatus all 401Ks must be invested in governemnt bonds. Also mandate a balanced budget. BINGO!
Trade deficit solves itself .. we all get better paying jobs, the 5% yield on government bonds is at least as good as what 401Ks have historicaly coughed up (market is getting a little rough again .. lookout). Everyone wins ...
Wait, no .. som people get really upset. Who? Wall street that makes a fair living peddling useless investments and of cours the CEOs and board of directors whose outrageous stock options would now be worthless and they would now have to get by on meager multi million dollar salaries ..
Would this plan save america?
Will politicians give a crap or will the Greg Glovers continue to peddle their "debt doesnt matter" line until we find ourselves completly subservient to our foreign masters?
It seems to me that before we start talking about how to pay down the debt, we must first have not just a balanced budget, but a budget surplus. The problem here is that if there is even a hint that we may approach a balanced budget in the next decade, our representatives in Congress start falling all over themselves finding new ways to spend money. It's the basic mindset in Washington that has to change, and we can only achive that thru the ballot box.
Today, despite tax cuts, federal revenues are up significantly. Unfortunately, growth in federal spending far exceeds growth in revenues. This implies to me that we need to focus first on the spending side of the equation.
As voters we need to demand from our representatives:
- A commitment to produce a balanced federal budget within a reasonable timeframe.
- An end to accounting tricks and lies about how much the federal government spends and collects. No more on budget/off budget nonsense, an honest treatment of "trust fund" money, an end to "emergency" spending bills for ongoing expenses, etc, etc. If any private company pulled the kind of accounting balony our goverment practices, all the executives would be spending the rest of thier lives in jail.
It's time for Americans to have an adult conversation about the national priorities and how we will allocate the finite resources we are willing to grant the federal government to work with. Too many people fail to realize that money spent by "the goverment" actually comes from thier own pockets.
We have been having that adult conversation for around 20 years. Washington has ignored us and now our adult conversation needs to center around the figure 8.3 TRILLION. I think it is high time we consider, for ourselves at least, if there is even any possibilty that we CAN deal with it.
If not why bother with any of the other conversation?
Quite a number of comments on this topic exhibit confusion; either confusion about how to write what they mean or confused thought processes.
Some seem to be along the lines of trying to fill up one's water well with the garden hose. When the well is dry, they wonder why the hose isn't working.
I am trying to envision that the money taken in for social security is converted into thousand-dollar bills and stored in a warehouse. Well, ok, put in a bank, insured by the federal government of course.
We all get together and pay off the debt -- no, we all pay off the interest. But the interest, it just keeps coming back. Hmm?
Those of you that have credit card debt, you know what happens as the balance grows: it gets harder to make the minimum payment. Some of you even know that it takes over a decade to pay off the debt if all you do is make the minimum payment. Some of you that had low (teaser) rates know what happens when you are late making a payment, or do not make the minimum payment. Suddenly, the interest rate the bank charges goes way up. A similar thing is happening now. The government spending all that money, along with a few other causes, puts more money in distribution. After a while, that money buys less. It inflates. Then you find your next bill (the treasury auction in the case of uncle sam's bill) costs you more in interest. Then you find you need to borrow more money because you have to pay more money in interest for the money you just borrowed, plus you are running up debt on your card. If you default on your debt, maybe bankruptcy laws let you keep your house, if it is paid off, or maybe your retirement savings. Maybe. If a company that you worked for goes bankrupt, maybe you find your defined benefit pension has been redefined and retirement is not looking so rosey. Hey, they went bankrupt, not me! no fair! What happens if uncle sam defaults? Well, it happens: Russia, Argentina, several places. What happens is that everyone who did not hide their cash and liquid assets in some other country loses everything. There is a "bank holiday" and the banks that re-open no longer have your money in them. Feel the pain.
Our government has been seeking various solutions to the debt spiral. You may recall they wanted to change the COLA (the cost-of-living-adjustment) on social security into what I call the UNCOLA (underaveraged nominal COLA). This monetizes the cost of social security because the longer you live, the less you can buy with that social security check; you won't be able to replace your old tube tv when it quits with an hdtv; but you will have enough to buy another old tube (too bad if you cannot receive anything on it because reception is all hdtv).
Monetizing the debt in a big way, like is presently being done in Zimbabwe (>2000% inflation), is something any rational government will avoid at all cost because the government invariably falls. No exceptions. Mao became ruler of China not by force of arms, but because the government in charge allowed hyper-inflation to happen.
This also gets some credit for putting into play the conditions conducive to the rise of the 3rd Reich. So the guy who wants to just print money, congrats, you have the best choice for making a revolution, draw that picture.
The best way to handle debt is to have a vibrant economy that is growing much faster than the debt. This is like the situation where you keep working, try to keep your credit card balance down, and get promotions and raises at work, and make more money. Now the credit card bill does not seem so bad. This is your opportuity to pay that balance down, or your opportunity to go out and buy that big big plasma screen you have been wanting for oh so long. So, do you do the adult thing, or help that inner child get a better picture? For a while, it seemed like our government wanted to do the adult thing. Taxes went up, spending was constrained, there was a plan (a phoney plan, but a plan) to reduce the national debt. Then the deprived inner child flowered, taxes were cut hugely, the cuts were rationalized about how it does not matter, its a *good* thing, it's 'supply side' and 'trickle down' (whenever I hear this, I imagine it tinkling on me from a great height, from someone laughing).
One would have hoped, in the decision for war, there would have been a shift back to the serious, more adult approach. A time of sacrifice. War bonds. Putting off all those great new benefits and tax cuts. America, let us sacrifice for now for the greater victory and security it will bring. But no. Have your cake, eat it too! The last time we had this combination was the Great Society and Viet Nam. Not guns or butter, but both. The result was 10 plus years of 'stagflation'. This is where you have that credit card debt, but you never get promoted, you never get a raise. You can't pay it off. You are stuck. Until... computers! So what will come along and save America this time? How long will we be stuck this time?
These things have a lag time. It is probably too late to avert it. It's like a diet: the benefits are down the road and every day you hate it. Doing things like:
Increase taxes, particularly on things that harm or do not improve productivity, such as, to name a painful few, smoking, drinking, sporting event tickets, private aircraft (this is lethal, kills the well educated, ask your life insurance agent or a Kennedy, tolls on 'freeways' (pay more to go faster). Make taxes more progressive, which means the top rate goes back up. Take the cap off social security taxes. Tax social security and all benefits like regular income (those on the bottom will still pay nothing or nearly nothing, because income tax is progressive). Re-rename the estate tax from "death tax" to "family dynasty tax" because that is what it is, and why they introduced it in the first place, by way of constitutional ammendment, no less. If you want to know what a country is like that is controlled by a few family dynasties, you need look no further than Mexico. If you like what you see, keep calling it the "death tax".
Don't do stupid taxes like taxing internet usage (you want people to telecommute, this is more productive than commuting, if they can do it). Be careful in how you raise corporation taxes. There are trade agreements, so find out how everyone else cheats to make their goods more competitive on internatioanl markets and use the same tricks. Figure out how to collect on violations in intellectual property. If you want to be provactive, send people there to estimate the amount of theft, and put duty on goods imported from their country to cover the cost of the theft. Give some of the money back to the companies being ripped off in the form of tax credits. This of course, is highly illegal. Would enjoy the court case though.
Raising taxes is not good if it just goes right out the window in increased spending. Start by repealing free prescription drugs. If you are old and have to chose between drugs and food (what a lie) then go get food stamps. As it is, some of this is going to help cover somebody's green fees; they get their pills for free and use the money they would have spent on that to get a round at Pebble Beach. Yeah, sure, not you, but somebody, maybe, right? You can see it is possible? There is no 'means test', is there? It's your right to get free drugs!
Of course, all new spending should be 'revenue neutral'; i.e. you cannot spend it unless you make a tax or cut some other spending program to pay for it. In fact, congress is so good at lying about money that we should probably seek 'revenue positive'. In other words, we assume they are lying and require that more has to be cut or taxes have to be raised more than the proposed spending increase. A different kind of COLA: cost of lying adjustment. Earmarks! Learn to love them by specifying the cost to any state receiving one is a reduction in federal highway funds provided to that state equal to the cost of the earmark plus ten percent.
Yes, this is fiction. No such changes will take place. Even if these things were done, other forces will continue to lift the debt to unsustainable levels: the cost of the war, which bizarrely is not even 'counted' as part of the budget shortfall, as if it was happening to someone else somewhere else; the ballooning debt being incurred by the pension guarantee corp., as enriched execs get together with richer bankers and rich lawyers to craft bankruptcy solutions that transfer future payments to loyal (well longstanding anyway)workers into present day payments into their bulging money market accounts. Is it raining? Do I hear laughter?
That was a very interesting essay - John Doe. I can sum it up in two sentences.
The government needs to cut spending (Spend Less). And, the goverment needs to increase revenue (Tax More).
If this ever happens, please wake me up from this nightmare, so I can enjoy the dream.
Remember the Ross Perot candidacy in 1991? He was originally a one-issue candidate-BALANCE THE BUDGET.
I voted for him as did 20% of America. Unfortunately he got lost on other issues, but our 20% vote forced President Clinton and the Republican House to balance the budget. Actually they really did not balance the budget because they used the social security surplus against current expenses. At least they tried to do something. This could be the main issue for our third party again. Even if we don't win, we will be heard.
As of the first 8 months this fiscal year Treasury revenues are uo 13% over last year and expenses are up 8%, which shows some merit to the tax cuts. The current budget deficit is now projected at $300Billion down from $350 Billion as projected. I do not think those numbers include the cost of our wars and Katrina and spending the social security surplus. I would propose a 10% surtax on incomes over $500,000 and a "death tax" of 35% on estates over $5 million, 50% over $100million and 67% over $1 billion. Someone had an excellent sugestion of requiring 401K investments to be in treasury bonds, I would extend that option to local and state bonds as well; and I would privitize 1-2% of future social security payments to individual accounts, again requiring only government bonds as the investment option. The main idea of the Bush plan was to take the social security surplus out of the budget so it could not be spent. Unfortunately because of the usual political demogoguery it was never properly explained to the public. Much more than that will be required to fix social security and medicare.
People will have to work until 70 to receive future benefits, there can be no more limits on taxable income for payroll tax purposes, and medicare has to be reformed. Let us have some intelligent debate on these issues. Remember we should always try to be Centrist on our ideas.
There are many variables that create a balanced budget.
First, I believe that designing a plan that generates revenue at the same time reduces debt can only be effective if each individual takes it upon themselves to be an active participant in the plan.
Ideas are the starting point for any new venture, and it is ideas that shaped and strengthened our country in the past. Also, sharing good and effective ideas from other parts of our world would not only establish better international relations, but it would limit the time needed for trial and error.
Our current debt can be reduced if we evaluate all expenses from a non-bias point-of-view. I believe that our current debt can be reduced if we create a more efficient format of checks and balances. All expenses must benefit the interests of the majority of Americans, any expenses that cannot be justified to meet the needs of the majority should be either eliminated or evaluated for improvements.
Again ChicagoAl and I seem to be looking at the same page. Al, werent you the one advocating a return to the draft? I had nearly written you off .... lol
The concept of having Americans invest in America shouldnt be dismissed. Each month Americans INJECT an absurd amount of money into the stock market via 401Ks. There is a general misconception that this money is somehow put to work by these corporations (to fund much needed R&D ect) ...
Thats a crock. All it does is recycle used paper in some kind of giant slot machine with a lot of holes that leak out huge profits to the investment firms that promote trade in the "products".
After the IPO stage not one cent is ever injected into any company other than to fund executive stock option payments (a system that is used and abused).
Why arent American encouraged to invest in America instead? If America is left to flounder everyone's golden years wont be worth a darn anyhow.
If all new 401K payments were diverted to governement bonds we would be financing our own future. Why should the government need to look to the likes of China to fund itself? We are undercutting our own prospects.
If we could eliminate the corruption in Washington so politicians could look beyond payoffs from investment firms and actually do their jobs of working for America, this would be a subject beyond debate; the positive benifit is so self evident IMO.
Nomad, Thank you for hightlighting this very important misconception. After an IPO, none of the investments moneys fund corporations.. except the case that you noted.
Government could go a long way toward fiscal responsibility (a.k.a. surpluses that decrease the national debt) by simplifying in 3 main areas.
1) Simplify Social Security. There are two SS shell-games. The first is SS "trust" fund. Government should stop taking from it's pension to cover operating costs. Then it could crack down on businesses that do the same. The second SS shell-game is how much a person contributes. Employers should not contribute half, but rather give raises and let the employee contribute the full amount. If people understood that 15.3% of their paycheck was going towards retirement they would require that those programs stay solvent until they retire.
2) Simplify the tax code. We'll never get to a postcard, but 90% of Americans should be able to complete their taxes by themselves without software in under two hours. Some needs to clear the special-interest clutter. Get rid of the above adjustments, get rid of deductions, increase the amount per exemption to over 10k per person, and get rid of the credits, especially the "un"earned-income credit. While they're at it simplify retirement/health/education savings with two accounts, 'Save Before Taxes' and 'Save After Taxes'. Tax all income at the same rate, no breaks for the wealthy stock owners.
3) Simplify legislation. Get rid of the pork. There should be no special appropriations, because Congress appropriates money to groups (like the NIH) who give grants. If the bridge to nowhere in Alaska was such a great project it could have gotten money from the DoT. Also there should not be any special war funding. That money needs to be included in the DoD's budget at this point. (Perhaps immediately after 9-11 there could have been a special funding, but at this point it's not special anymore.) Sunset clauses that make the long-term forecasts look better than it reality need to go. Last the budget process should be pay-as-you-go. If the 10-year projection isn't for surpluses, redo it.
If these things don't halve the national debt, then raise taxes on the top income tax bracket. It's not because rich people are evil, I hope to be one of them, it's that they have benefited the most from the U.S. government. Take all their talents and hard work and plop them down in Sierra Leone and they won't be rich anymore, so they owe to put in their share. I thought this was my original idea until I found out that Adam Smith thought of it hundreds of years ago. If you have a problem with raising taxes on the top bracket, please be kind enough to respond with your idea of what type of income it takes to get in that bracket as I think most people have no idea.
Nomad: I never advocated the draft, I recommended mandatory 2 year government service after highschool, that could include building fences on both our borders,guarding our borders, helping in hospitals and schools, and voluntarily joining the military. I would advocate a system of college tuition credits for the work. Regarding government spending- how about the WAR ON DRUGS which was created by my least favorite ex-president Richard Milhouse Nixon. If that isn't a big waste of money what is? Drug legalization would also empty our prisons by 50% or more.
Al; Thanks for the clarification about the draft thing. You had me concerned there for a minute :)
Having served in the military I have little remorse in stating that military life is an acquired taste and should be sampled on a volunteer only basis. But the public service idea I like. I have heard the idea tossed around before and can see no harm in giving young people some stake, some sense of participation in the country we call home. I think though there should be some trade off in return, as in eduaction or training benefits to offset the outrageous costs of continued ed ...
Chicago Al:
Legalize drugs to reduce the prison population? What other crimes should we legalize to reduce the prison population?
I dont know if Al really proposes legalizing drugs or simply making the penalties imposed more in line with the nature of the offense. Our prison system is bloated with people who are guilty basicaly of nothing other than either possesion or minor traficing and these people are doing some LENGTHY prison sentences. It is quite absurd actually. My guess is that if you get caught with an eight ball these days you can plan on spending considerably longer in prison than Kenneth Lay will ever be threatened with. Your talking millions upon millions of youthful offenders.
All these diffrent topics are of interest in different measure to the individuals who happen upon this web page. It would help your cause if you reviewed the offerings before posting 'em, and arranged them in some classified order so we, the readers, can pick and choose our topics without having to wade through a random distribution of topics.
Chris: You seem horrified if we let a teenager out of prison for the dasdardly crime against humanity of smoking a marijuana joint or buying coke. You probably are against medical uses of marijuana for terminally ill cancer patients as well. PBS television ran a townhall open meeting around 20-25 years ago regarding the legalization of all drugs. There were supporters like William F Buckley, Mayor Smoke of Baltimore and some professors. Against legalization were other professors and young Congressman Charles Rangel of New York whose famous quote was "you can't legalize drugs, how would my young constituents earn a living?" With logic like that how can you still support criminalizing drugs.
To fully answer your question I would also legalize the other victimless crimes of prostitution and gambling. I realize Harry Reid may not agree since it would cripple Nevada's economy, but we are talking national interest here. Our party needs controversial positions in order to be heard.
I thought these figures might be useful. If you're going to balance the budget this is where you start.
Total Federal Budget - $2,770,000,000,000
All figures below are in billions of dollars
Major Expenditures Within Each Department and Agency
Department of Defense $558
Personnel $110
Operations and Maintenance $162
Procurement $90
Research and Development $72
Global War on Terror $56
Department of Health and Human Services $699
Medicare and Medicaid $870*
*This figure is offset by receipts
Department of the Treasury $494
Interest on the National Debt $440
Internal Revenue Service $64
Social Security Administration $622
Old Age and Survivors Insurance Fund $486
Federal Disability Insurance $101
Department of Veterans Affairs $74
Veterans Health Administration $34
Benefits Programs $39
Department of Education $65
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education $22
Office of Special Education And Rehabilitation Services $15
Office of Federal Student Aid $19
Department of Housing and Urban Development $45
Public and Indian Housing $32
Community Planning and Development $10
Office of Personnel Management $64
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund $61
Department of Transportation $68
Federal Aviation Administration $15
Federal Highway Administration $39
Federal Transit Administration $9
Department of Agriculture $93
Food Stamps and Child Nutrition Programs $58
Commodity Credit Corporation $18
All Other Departments and Agencies $190
These figures are taken from Budget Explorer
The link is http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/
Select Budget
Fiscal responsibility is easy to achieve. Getting politicians to exercise the discipline necessary to achieve it is the hard part.
What it takes to balance the federal budget is a structure, be it political, economic, legal, or a combination thereof, that makes it political suicide to oppose fiscal responsibility. Therefore, a modest proposal:
The legislative proposal should take essentially the following form: the tax law should be amended to that a series of surtaxes is levied, in subsequent calander years, on legal entities (individuals, married couples, partnerships, corporations, trusts, etc.,) for the pro rata shares of the budget deficit of prior years, and subsequently the pro rata share of the interest on said deficit.
In other words, the generation of taxpayers that runs up the deficit, or by proxy, permits it to be run up, is stuck with the bill, not their children or children's children.
When the political consequences of deficit spending are immediately felt within the immediate electoral cycle by our elected representatives, just watch how popular fiscal responsibility will become among our chosen representatives!
There is one number I’d like to point out on Bob Gill’s list:
Interest on the National Debt $440 Billion
This is what we choose to spend $440 Billion a year on?
This is what we need to borrow more money to keep up with?
Unity ’08 is focused on a presidential campaign. I’d like to solicit ideas on what a presidential candidate could promise to do about the national debt that is practical, and within the power of the executive branch.
Consider this:
Don’t sign any budget until both cambers of Congress pass non-binding resolutions containing a time line in which we plan to pay off the national debt. Let’s shift the public debate on how old we’ll all be when it even could be paid off. Or the fact that we can’t even think that it could ever be paid off. At worst, if the legislature could over ride the veto, it would be one of the most bi-partisan budgets we’ve had. And it would wake people up to how out of control we currently are.