0
mnealtx

Government spending

Recommended Posts

Given: Gov't spending is completely out of control from BOTH sides of the aisle. Kindly spare the discussion of which group of shitbags is worse, TYVM.

Given: Spending has to be controlled in some fashion.

Problem: HOW can spending by Congress be controlled?

Here's my thoughts:

1. A balanced budget amendment.
2. Requiring all bills be 'clean' bills - no pork hidden in the small print.
3. Removal of ALL political action groups and lobbyists and the requirement that ALL bills submitted must be posted for at least 30 days online for the public to review/comment - TRUE transparency.
4. Strict term limits - two rides around the merry-go-round, and home you go.

I think all of the above would *probably* have the desired effect - but how do we ENSURE it? IS there any way to *reasonably* limit the budget so that essential services are funded but pork projects are not?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>1. A balanced budget amendment.

I would add a reporting requirement to that. Every bill has a "tax increase statement" associated with it that contains a comment on how much this would increase taxes for a sampling of incomes - or, if no change is foreseen, a statement concerning where the money will come from. California has a similar requirement on its ballot initiatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


2. Requiring all bills be 'clean' bills - no pork hidden in the small print.



if mccain gets in, hopefully he will take care of this one with liberal use of his veto pen and orders to get rid of the pork. pork has long been one of his pet peeves.

i would be interested in seeing just how much of our money gets spen in this manner.


"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>1. A balanced budget amendment.

I would add a reporting requirement to that. Every bill has a "tax increase statement" associated with it that contains a comment on how much this would increase taxes for a sampling of incomes - or, if no change is foreseen, a statement concerning where the money will come from. California has a similar requirement on its ballot initiatives.



I like that idea. I think it would increase public awareness of just how much issue "x" is going to cost them and increase interaction with their congresscritter.

This is what I was working toward with the tax questions - how do we control Congress? Do we control the amount coming in, the amount going out, or both?

After the tax discussions, I don't think there IS any realistic way to control incoming amounts, as long as they can pass any tax laws they want.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>as long as they can pass any tax laws they want.

They pass tax laws WE want. The change has to come from us. That means that democrats have to stop supporting welfare laws and medicare. Republicans have to stop supporting the war and the military. From what I have seen here, there is little chance of either happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is actually your best argument for not increasing taxes. The primary contraint on Congress appears to be the supply of money. No sooner had Clinton's administration balanced (more or less) the budget than the next one went on a spending tear. It's a lot easier to throw money at terrorists, tax cuts, TSA/HSA creations when you're feeling balanced than if you're 500B in the red for the year.

Past that, #2 might work, but disrupts 200 years of political process. #1 probably fails for the same way it doesn't really force CA or other states to do it without gimmicks like lottery bonds. #3 and #4 fail badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>as long as they can pass any tax laws they want.

They pass tax laws WE want. The change has to come from us. That means that democrats have to stop supporting welfare laws and medicare. Republicans have to stop supporting the war and the military. From what I have seen here, there is little chance of either happening.



I don't disagree in general, but I think I stated it correctly - there was a recent poll showing that something like 60% of the country was in favor of lower taxes, but you don't see Congress saying that they're going to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

I think that term limits would go a long way toward making Congress more responsive to the wishes of the populace - which is what they're SUPPOSED to be.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is actually your best argument for not increasing taxes. The primary contraint on Congress appears to be the supply of money. No sooner had Clinton's administration balanced (more or less) the budget than the next one went on a spending tear. It's a lot easier to throw money at terrorists, tax cuts, TSA/HSA creations when you're feeling balanced than if you're 500B in the red for the year.



I don't see any feasible way to accomplish it, though.

Quote

Past that, #2 might work, but disrupts 200 years of political process.



I disagree - I think the 'pork problem' is much more recent - perhaps the last 40-50 years at most, if not less than that. Admittedly, I've not done research to confirm that, it's just my feeling.

Quote

#1 probably fails for the same way it doesn't really force CA or other states to do it without gimmicks like lottery bonds. #3 and #4 fail badly.



How do you feel that 3 and 4 would be failures? (Other than the pipe dream that they'd ever be passed, of course)
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>1. A balanced budget amendment.

I would add a reporting requirement to that. Every bill has a "tax increase statement" associated with it that contains a comment on how much this would increase taxes for a sampling of incomes - or, if no change is foreseen, a statement concerning where the money will come from. California has a similar requirement on its ballot initiatives.



How does it work in CA? The FAA is required to put a "cost" in every new rule, but the numbers they state don't seem to be connected with reality in any obvious way.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


2. Requiring all bills be 'clean' bills - no pork hidden in the small print.



if mccain gets in, hopefully he will take care of this one with liberal use of his veto pen and orders to get rid of the pork. pork has long been one of his pet peeves.

i would be interested in seeing just how much of our money gets spen in this manner.




Here ya go.

www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C5-FY-2008-Had-the-Second-Highest.html
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> there was a recent poll showing that something like 60% of the
>country was in favor of lower taxes . . .

2008 polls:

Are your taxes too high?

Too high:52%
About right: 42%
Too low: 2%

Is the amount you have to pay fair?

Fair 60%
Not fair 35%

Are the amounts others pay fair?

High income:
Fair 24%
Too much 9%
Too little 63%

Middle income:
Fair 50%
Too much 43%
Too little 4%

Low income:
Fair 32%
Too much 51%
Too little 13%

Have Federal tax cuts have been worth it, because they have helped strengthen the economy by allowing Americans to keep more of their own money?

Worth it 42%
Not worth it 45%

2004 poll: would you prefer the 2003 tax cuts made permanent, or the money used for a job creation program?

Tax cuts 21%
Job creation 76%

Would you prefer permanent tax cuts or paying down the deficit?

Tax cuts 42%
Deficit reduction 50%

It is my experience that when you ask people if they want their taxes cut, they almost always say yes. When you ask them if they want a tax cut or they want to keep their favorite program, they almost always go with the favorite program - which is the real choice to be made.

In other words, our representatives are doing what we want them to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>How does it work in CA?

A budget analyst must include a fiscal impact statement for any proposition on the ballot. It's usually pretty general. Of course, proponents of every bill state "THIS WILL NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES" but the budget analyst does a fairly good job of figuring out the actual impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

> there was a recent poll showing that something like 60% of the
>country was in favor of lower taxes . . .

2008 polls:

Are your taxes too high?

Too high:52%
About right: 42%
Too low: 2%

Is the amount you have to pay fair?

Fair 60%
Not fair 35%

Are the amounts others pay fair?

High income:
Fair 24%
Too much 9%
Too little 63%

Middle income:
Fair 50%
Too much 43%
Too little 4%

Low income:
Fair 32%
Too much 51%
Too little 13%

Have Federal tax cuts have been worth it, because they have helped strengthen the economy by allowing Americans to keep more of their own money?

Worth it 42%
Not worth it 45%

2004 poll: would you prefer the 2003 tax cuts made permanent, or the money used for a job creation program?

Tax cuts 21%
Job creation 76%

Would you prefer permanent tax cuts or paying down the deficit?

Tax cuts 42%
Deficit reduction 50%

It is my experience that when you ask people if they want their taxes cut, they almost always say yes. When you ask them if they want a tax cut or they want to keep their favorite program, they almost always go with the favorite program - which is the real choice to be made.

In other words, our representatives are doing what we want them to do.



Did the poll ask if they were in favor of motherhood and apple pie too?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


2. Requiring all bills be 'clean' bills - no pork hidden in the small print.



if mccain gets in, hopefully he will take care of this one with liberal use of his veto pen and orders to get rid of the pork. pork has long been one of his pet peeves.

.



Ha ha. Bush talks a good talk against earmarks too. How many spending bills did he veto from 2001-2006? Earmarks ballooned in that period.

Not only did he not veto anything, he actually indulged in his own earmarking:

The actual number, according to watchdog groups, is nearly impossible to tally, but is around 580 worth $15.6 billion that Bush included in his appropriation request for military construction and veterans affairs.

The $31.6 billion energy and water spending bill also contains billions in direct spending on projects selected by the Bush administration.


Some Bush earmarks: $24 million for the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program. The president earmarked a billion dollars for the Reading First program, which was criticized by government auditors for steering contracts to favored companies. He also sought $8.9 million for the Points of Light foundation, a pet project started by his father.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Given: Spending has to be controlled in some fashion.

Problem: HOW can spending by Congress be controlled?



Well, for starters you could stop the war.



And the reverse is that you could excessive welfare spending, each applying to a different end of the political spectrum.

Now - that said, do you have any suggestions to getting spending by Congress under control?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
re: poll data -

I take your point, Bill - I had only seen reference to the poll in a blurb, and not detail on the questions, but why does it have to be an either/or scenario in that regard?

My point is *IF* (and it's a BIG if, I know) it's possible to rein back spending in Congress, why COULDN'T there be both?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>why COULDN'T there be both?

Why couldn't we cut spending _and_ keep everyone's favorite programs? The answer to that one is self evident. Did I misunderstand your question?



I think we drifted a bit, but we're still in the same current, so to speak.

My point was that *IF* the wasteful spending could be controlled, why couldn't we have both?

I think that the suggestions made for clean bills, public scrutiny and cost accounting would result in MORE public awareness of the waste evident in current spending and more pressure on Congress to cut out the pork.

I also think that term limits would reduce the 'ivory tower syndrome' within congress and make congress more responsive to the wishes of the public in regards to spending.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I think that the suggestions made for clean bills, public scrutiny and cost
>accounting would result in MORE public awareness of the waste evident in
>current spending and more pressure on Congress to cut out the pork.

Yes, visibility (and cost accountability) is good, and will allow people to more readily realize the consequences of the various bills before the legislature. However, nothing in the above will cause a hawk to decide that defense spending is pork, and nothing in the above will convince a scientist that funding for the Hubble is wasted.

>make congress more responsive to the wishes of the public in regards to
>spending.

That's sorta my point. People WANT jobs-creation programs. They WANT wars. (Well, at least in the beginning.) They WANT economic stimulus packages. They WANT space exploration.

They also want all of that while getting someone else to pay for it, which is where the arguing comes in. There's no clean solution to those conflicting priorities, other than to determine who can be taxed the most and who will squauk the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They also want all of that while getting someone else to pay for it, which is where the arguing comes in. There's no clean solution to those conflicting priorities, other than to determine who can be taxed the most and who will squauk the least.



I agree - that's part of what has me wondering if it's possible at all (unfortunately)
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


3. Removal of ALL political action groups and lobbyists and the requirement that ALL bills submitted must be posted for at least 30 days online for the public to review/comment - TRUE transparency.



And add online voting system. The congresspeople are not allowed to pass the bill if less than half voters approved it (if more, they might pass or not pass the bill; in case it doesn't pass it must get 3/4 of voters).
* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republicans have to stop supporting the war and the military

////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Stop supporting the military????? What do you mean by that?????
Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sooner had Clinton's administration balanced (more or less) the budget than the next one went on a spending tear. It's a lot easier to throw money at terrorists, tax cuts,

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

First of all Clinton never got close to balancing a bugget:S. Secound (check out history) cutting taxes stimulates the econmy and produces more tax dollars.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0