@Cmdr:
1) Gut the Federal Government.
2) Slash taxes.
2a) Not to mention that states will be better equipped to tailor their program to their own needs
2c) And, since no government body is good at anything, but some are better then others, people who feel that their local government sucks, can move a short distance across the border to the neighboring government.
I’m with you 100%! on the above points. 100%.
Jenn for pres 2012!
If the government cuts spending, than they don’t need to tax as much. One leads to the other.
Sadly, “cutting spending” is not understood by most of our civic servants.
Wouldn’t it be completely hillarious if you gave Senator Joe Blow a budget for the year and he did what he normally does? You know, spend it in a few weeks and then come back for more and you told him “Heck no, you had your money, if you wasted it that’s your fault. I’m not giving you more money to save your can. However, I’ll gladly release a press report telling your constituents that you are now broke and will have to stay home for the rest of the year.”
Betcha it would take ONE year and senators would suddenly figure out how to hire and listen to accountants to keep their budgets on track without overages!
You never see Project Managers in the real world running out of money after only 8% of the project was completed. Well, you do, but they are normally FIRED.
You never see someone succeed in going to court and telling the Judge that they should not have their Car Repoed just because they missed the last 40 payments. (Illinois is currently 40 months behind on paying contractors for the state. According to ABC News a couple of months ago.)
@JWW:
The government reducing taxes or reducing spending?
I think it is more important to reduce spending and then once a surplus is realised for a length of time then reduce taxes but I am no economist.
Seems like the R party has had it backwards for quite some time now?
Well, if I were working in government, I wouldn’t want the programs I was in charge of or in head of to get reduced budgets. It would make me sad. It would make me feel like I had a smaller thingy than my neighbor.
Big huge glorious cost overruns - that’s what’s really important. Lets me hold my head up proud like a real Democrat. I’M in CHARGE. I command a budget worth TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS. What is this “spending oversight committee” you speak of? WORMS. THEY only have THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS for their budget. I am WAY more important.
As my high school economics teacher said, “If the government did things that where sensible, it would be called a corporation.”
@M36:
As my high school economics teacher said, “If the government did things that where sensible, it would be called a corporation.”
Amen.
Honestly, I know that you cannot run a government like a corporation. The only way to do it would be to strip the people of the power to elect their leaders and only appoint leaders based on merit. (This is why we have Public Administration, btw. Merit based people put in power to run the day to day operations and advise the elected leaders how to work best.)
But, common. If you run out of money, there should be a law that you cannot spend more! At least require the Congress to have a 2/3rds majority and get Presidential confirmation before any deficit spending! (That alone should take about a year, hopefully we’ll have a better solution before that gets passed!)
@Cmdr:
But, common. If you run out of money, there should be a law that you cannot spend more! At least require the Congress to have a 2/3rds majority and get Presidential confirmation before any deficit spending! (That alone should take about a year, hopefully we’ll have a better solution before that gets passed!)
Uh…Congress already has to approve the budget. But you knew that, right?
@Cmdr:
But, common. If you run out of money, there should be a law that you cannot spend more! At least require the Congress to have a 2/3rds majority and get Presidential confirmation before any deficit spending! (That alone should take about a year, hopefully we’ll have a better solution before that gets passed!)
Uh…Congress already has to approve the budget. But you knew that, right?
Yes, but what you did not notice is that I said they should need to get 2/3rds majority to approve spending BEYOND the money brought in and then get the President’s signature.
A budget is just a simple majority vote. However, that budge better balance right because they’ll need to find an extra 16 Senators and a lot more Congressmen to sign off on it if we need to take out a new loan!
The US Constitution specifically grants the power that ALL spending legislation originate in the House of Representatives. Not the Senate, not with the President… but the House of Representatives is given the primary “power of the purse”
And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.
if they want to spend the same, then they don’t need to go into the new laws. It is only a measure to prevent them from spending 40 billion dollars on a hammer and having nothing left to buy any nails with.
The Founding Fathers had a good idea…
Those closest to the people had to be the ones to authorize spending before anyone else was given a crack at it.
If we had a responsible electorate, this would still work well.
@Cmdr:
And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.
if they get 2/3s they win. The executive then MUST sign. 2/3 surpasses vetoe didn’t you know?
@stuka:
@Cmdr:
And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.
if they get 2/3s they win. The executive then MUST sign. 2/3 surpasses vetoe didn’t you know?
Kinda the point, Stuka.
If they want to borrow money, they better have at least, let me say that again, A–-T L—E—A—S—T 67% of our elected leaders signing off on that deficit.
@stuka:
@Cmdr:
And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.
if they get 2/3s they win. The executive then MUST sign. 2/3 surpasses vetoe didn’t you know?
Actually, he still does not have to sign. It just becomes law without Presidential Signature.
@ncscswitch:
@stuka:
@Cmdr:
And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.
if they get 2/3s they win. The executive then MUST sign. 2/3 surpasses vetoe didn’t you know?
Actually, he still does not have to sign. It just becomes law without Presidential Signature.
And if you look at my original proposal, you would see I said we need to change the constitution to require 2/3rds AND presidential signature. So yes, he WOULD have to sign, Switch.
I was referring to current law in order to clarify the present reality.
@ncscswitch:
I was referring to current law in order to clarify the present reality.
As long as you were not trying to correct my hope for NEW law because you misread me, I think we’re cool. :P
Hey I LIKE the idea that increases in spending require Super or 2/3 Majority to pass AND signature.
One of the main reason I vote Libertarian is that if a Libertarian wins it would force Congress to have to override Presidential Veto in order to spread pork.
Just realize Jen that your idea will never pass. It would require 2/3 of Congress to vote to give up their power. And sadly, that will NEVER happen.
Many view the Fair Tax as DOA because it would be a surrender of significant Congressional power, and Congress will never do that to itself. Your option would be about 2 levels of power loss beyond even that.
I know. The only way for Congress to make the necessary changes would be an over throw of the government (or a convincing threat of over throw) or to elect 400some odd members to the Congress (and Senate) with a moral center and a firm grip and understanding on ethics.
Since no politician can be elected to the county level or higher in this country that has EITHER of those two things (A or B or A+B) then it will NEVER happen.
@Cmdr:
I know. The only way for Congress to make the necessary changes would be an over throw of the government (or a convincing threat of over throw) or to elect 400some odd members to the Congress (and Senate) with a moral center and a firm grip and understanding on ethics.
That’s hilarious.
I’ve always dreamt of a modern American revolution yet in reality, it would be a modern Civil War.
As far as your wish list for making such a drastic change, it would essentially make vetoing a thing of the past. All the president would have to do is not sign it.
