Cut, Cap, and Balance limits spending to 18% of GDP. Taxes bring in 14% of GDP,
leaving us with a large deficit in perpetuity. The only way to control it is a
combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
If you were truly interested in a real budget solution, you would suggest
specific cuts.Also, how can anyone be serious about a new budget if
they automatically take out any discussion on raising revenue/closing tax
When the tea party takes actions that lead to a credit down grade instead of
dealing with the issue, leading to higher interest rates and higher taxes as a
result, then it is reasonable and easy to say the tea party is irresponsible.
Yes, we have to address budget and the deficit, but making demands for cuts in
selected programs while voting for more spending in other program, and refusing
to increase revenue even through closing loopholes, cutting off subsidies, and
eliminating special tax credits, is a path of destruction, and the tea party is
leading that charge.
First of all the old comparison of family finances and govermental finances is
just foolish. A government can just print or restrict money and inflate it's
way out many debt problems. Obviously with consequences, but try that with your
home finances. A government can go to it's bosses and demand more income to pay
it's debts. Try that with your boss with a 9% unemployment rate. Lastly, you assume that a debt holder wants the debt paid off at some point.
Ask the bank if they want you to pay off your credit card and quit using it. I
recently got a credit report. The stated reason for my credit not being
perfect..I hadn't gotten a new credit card recently enough. I could have the
highest credit rating available if I'd just keep getting new credit cards. If you want to crash this economy just eliminate all debt.
This analogy of a family is incorrect. Should the family stop paying mortgage
payments already incurred to affect political elections? The international
economy in an attempt to recover may not need a huge jolt to credit advocated by
the default seekers for short term political gain. The writers is spot on in his
acknowledgement of his foolish postion and advocacy of the tea party debt
Increasing taxes is not the only way to increase revenue. You can
actually increase revenue by eliminating corporate and individual loopholes and
deductions while even lowering the overall tax rate. This strategy of increasing
revenue does not have the disadvantage of inhibiting economic growth. To those of you who want to raise the tax rate on the "rich" to
Clinton levels, this is inadequate. The white house's numbers suggest that would
bring in additional $60 billion/year. That doesn't make a dent. Why do you care
so much about raising the taxes on the rich? It is such a poor solution.
I also think it's time conservatives deeply consider cutting defense spending.
Between 2001 and 2009, overall spending on defense rose from $412
billion to $680 billion, a 70 percent increase. Really? We need $699
billion? It's ironic that many conservatives want to
eliminate wasteful spending and increase competition yet allow such to occur in
the military. I have a hard time believing that we need $680 billion a year for
the military. We couldn't maintain the best military in the world with $600
billion, $550, or $500?Do we really need ALL of the international
bases? Do we have to give no-bid contracts? Couldn't we focus more on
intelligence and high tech stuff to decrease the need for troops?I
wish conservatives would deeply consider these issues.
Wow! The Tea Party has only been around for a few months, and allready they are
responsible for our 14 trillion going to 20 trillion National debt. Not to
mention the ratings downgrade. Can you say Scapegoat?
The amounts of money being debated by both political parties is minuscule
compared to the seriousness of our debt problems. It's like trying to pay off a
debt by paying the minimum requirement on a credit card. At that rate, the debt
will continue to grow rather than decline. It has been estimated by Lawrence
Kotlikoff (using CBO estimates) that our GDP will have to increase by 12%
immediately and into perpetuity to keep up with current and future
commitments.The fact is that we're broke far beyond the scope of
these ridiculously partisan bickerings. Credit rating groups should've
downgraded our government's financial condition years ago. The fact that
Standard & Poor's waited this long is indicative of the collusion that
exists among them, government and the financial industry.
The budget deficit under Mr. Obama is almost as large as the defense budget,
Social Security and Medicare. Of those three programs, only defense is
enumerated in the Constitution. Congress in not authorized to spend money or to
raise revenues for Social Security or Medicare.Raising taxes will
not generate revenue, it will reduce revenue. The government has tracked the
relationship between tax rates and revenue since 1981, when the Reagan tax cuts
went into effect. Revenues when up when rates were reduced. Revenues when down
when Clinton increased the tax rates. Revenues went up when Bush decreased the
tax rates. Even the most stubborn tax hike advocate must admit that reducing tax
rates increases revenue.Mr. Obama has refused to give direction for
reduced spending. Mr. Reid has refused to give direction for reduced spending.
The House HAS presented a bi-partisan plan to reduce spending. Mr. Reid told us
that the House plan was dead on arrival. Mr. Obama told us he would veto it.It is the Democrats who have created this problem and it is the
Democrats who prolong it.
Mike, I don't disagree with what you have said. However, just
because defense is enumerated in the Constitution does not mean that it should
have a blank check. Do you really think we need to spend $680 billion a year on
defense? That's more than what the rest of the world spends on defense put
together. Even though you can make sizable and reasonable (even for
Dems) cuts in Social Security (by raising the retirement age) and means testing
medicare, Democrats are unlikely to agree to these if the GOP doesn't give on
something. I don't want to give on increasing taxes because I think it's harmful
and there are better ways of raising revenue. But if we show that we
are willing to compromise, by cutting defense, we may get the more significant,
meaningful cuts in entitlements. For successful negotiations BOTH
sides HAVE to give some. Even if one party is entirely in the right (pun
intended), the other party will not agree unless they FEEL like they have gotten
something.The GOP needs the senate if they are to make real change
in fiscal policy. We wont be able to do that if we look obstinate.
The facts of life are that as independent individuals we are weak, ineffective,
unprotected and unimportant to the others in our society. It is only when we
add our voice to the collective group of like minded individuals that we have
power, strength, protection and importance. In the real world, the
only group that has even the most remote interest of our group of individuals is
the national government. That's because only in the total nation does the
people still have the power to require that the rules of society benefit the
people as much as the giant private tyrants of the world. Even so, in every
case where a benefit is given to the people, the private tyrants must extract
their fee. The goal of these tyrants is to eliminate the strength
and power of the people to require a part of the benefits from society by
weakening, limiting and making the national government ineffective. In a world
where the giant tyrants are growing by leaps and bounds, the minions of their
group, like the Tea Party, are working to reach their goal by their "cut,
cap and balance".
Ultra BobYou are extremely naive to think that public tyrants do not
extract their fee. At least with the private tyrants, I can choose
not to pay their fee. I do not have that choice with the public tyrants.
Ninth Amendment:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.Tenth Amendment:The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."The
powers not delegated...are reserved... or to the people", says that the
people have the power to ask their government to do those things they desire.
Even when it is ask by their elected representatives who are the peoples voice
in the national government.Accordingly, there can not be
unauthorized, illegal or unconstitutional requests for help from their national
government by the people.
This nation has had a balanced budget before without an amendment to the
Constitution. The "pass an amendment" stunt by the Tea Party is
devisive and unproductive. It is wasting precious time.
Re: RolandThe 18% of GDP spending rate is actually relatively close
to the 40 year average of tax receipts in the US.
Brett,Compromising defense when terrorists are waiting to attack will not
save money, or lives, or freedom. I have no idea what a reasonable amount would
be if someone culled out all the pork from the defense budget. Surely there is
waste. Is that waste 10% or is it 50%? How many air force bases do we need?
We need enough to do the complete job.---Ultra Bob,The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."Nothing in that
amendment grants the people authority to ask for anything extra constitutional.
The Constitution LIMITS the government. It prohibits it from doing anything not
authorized. It also limits what the people can demand from their government.
The people cannot ask the government to do something that the people have
already prohibited the government from doing. If the people want to add
authority to the government, they first have to amend the Constitution.
Roland,I guess you missed the part in "cut, cap, and
BALANCE" that would prevent spending going to 18% when revenue is only 14%
of GDP since it would result in the budget not being balanced.
To lost in D.C.: Then someone should show us a sample budget that spends only
14% of GDP, or even 18%. The fact that none of the proponents of the amendment
will do that suggests to me that the budget they produced would be unacceptable
to the vast majority of Americans. They know that, so they won't give us any
The only "budget" that either party has produced that actually risked
talking actual cuts is the Ryan plan. It was passed by the House on a straight
party line vote. So that much is true of what has been claimed above. What has
been missed however is that in the 10 years of the Ryan plan, the budget would
still not achieve balance. So who is kidding who here??Both sides
are still trying to score points on the other rather than risk talking about
real cuts. Brett is right that cutting deductions from the tax code while
lowering rates would work, but that too has so far been off limits as a tax
increase. S&P just called their bluff...no serious cutting OR taxing talk,
no AAA rating.
Families dont spend more than they have,, What do you think caused the housing
crisis? People taking equity out of their homes and spending it. Then, when the
bubble burst, They dont have anything except bills. Kinda like our financial
national crisis. This didnt just happen, we have spent like this for 30 plus
years. Ask Orin Hatch how long he's been going along with this. About 30 plus
@Americanwithnohyphen:"How about this solution; change the tax
code to a flat tax and eliminate deductions..."Eliminate the
charity deduction and institutions that rely on charitable contributions would
soon disappear. Eliminate the home mortgage deduction and the housing market
would sink further into the abyss."...have a 1% national sales
tax..."Yeah, right. A 1% would begin to grow and eventually
reach 10, 15, 20 percent or even higher. Never underestimate the greed of the
WRZ: Canada has never had a home interest deduction and their housing market
looked pretty solid when I was there last month. ANYTHING can be done IF it is
set to phase in over time. People said in the 80's raising the Social Security
age would be catastrophic so they did it over 30 years. We need to move in a
positive direction and talk real money not the pipe dreams that both parties
have offered to this point. How about a 1% tax that is called a "war"
tax or "support our troops" tax...let's see a politician oppose that!
Most families have a negative net worth. Mortgage for a home, loan for a car,
student loans to get started in a profession--the sum of these far exceeds
annual income for most families. The letter writer considers these people
irresponsible. I consider them my neighbors who are trying their best to grow
their families and contribute to the world around them.
@Grover:"WRZ: Canada has never had a home interest deduction
and their housing market looked pretty solid..."That's because
they never had one. Take something away that people count on is where you get
the adverse effect. "ANYTHING can be done IF it is set to phase
in over time."Agreed."How about a 1% tax that
is called a 'war' tax or 'support our troops' tax...let's see a politician
oppose that!"Call it what you will. But, once a new source of
revenue is identified by politicians and tapped it will grow like the morning
glory weed in your garden. And it will never go away. Politicians can always
find new ways to spend all the revenue they can get their greedy hands on.
Mike. As I read the plain English of the tenth Amendment, it talks
about two sets of powers. One set is the powers given to the Federal Government
and the other is the powers reserved to the people. The two groups of powers
must by accepted math and logic comprise all the powers in existence. Therefore my contention that what ever the national government does for the
people as requested by the people or their representatives, cannot be
unconstitutional. Also nothing in the tenth Amendment says
anything about how the people have to go about asking their government for help.
Question: If one part of the Constitution conflicts with another
part, which part takes precedence? Is it the first or the last part of the
conflict?Brett.I don't make any distinction between
public and private tyrants. All men become tyrants when given the opportunity.
If you don't address the revenue side, and the biggest 'entitlement' (military)
it's not going to work.
@Hutterite:"If you don't address the revenue side, and the
biggest 'entitlement' (military) it's not going to work."You
act like the revenue side is not addressed. It is addressed. The revenue side
is taxes. We have a taxing system and taxes are too high. The government has
to live within its revenues. If it can't, then budgets have to be cut. The
fact of the matter is, the government will spend all it can get its hands on...
whether from taxes, borrowing, or both. As we can see, borrowing has gotten out
of hand - now $14.4 trillion - and in ten years more like $20 trillion. It's
time for the government and our politicians to wake up and see that we are not
only broke as a nation, we are bankrupt.