Mitt Romney's failure was inevitable

[dbucfan]

Here's more with other ideas

Cato Policy Report, July/August 1996

Seven Reforms to Balance the Budget

by Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute and author Government: America's #1 Growth Industry (1995). This article is based on testimony he delivered before the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on March 27, 1996.

Over the past 50 years Congress has lost all control over federal spending. As Table 1 shows, even after adjusting for inflation, the federal government spends almost four times more today than it did 40 years ago. Entitlement spending has seen the largest growth. My overall conclusion from the data is that government today is America's number-one growth industry.

A top priority for this Congress should be passage of a new budget act. The 1974 Budget Reform and Impoundment Control Act has been a monumental failure. One of the purposes of that act was to eliminate deficit spending, but this is the actual legacy of that legislation: in the 20 years before the act, the federal deficit averaged just 1 percent of gross domestic product, or $30 billion 1994 dollars. In the 20 years since the 1974 act, the average budget deficit has been $170 billion per year, or 3.5 percent of GDP. We have accumulated more than $4 trillion in debt since 1976. By any objective standard, the budget process has not worked better under the 1974 act--it has worked much worse.

Figure 1 shows how the budget deficit has grown since Harry S. Truman was president. Despite recent progress in reducing the deficit, the long-term prognosis remains grim. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that if we stick with the Clinton budget plan, the deficit will begin rising after 1996 and reach a record high of $350 billion within 10 years.

The 1974 Budget Act cannot be fixed. Tinkering won't do the trick. Congress ought to repeal the act before it does more damage to our national economy.

The centerpiece of any budget reform quite clearly should be an amendment to the Constitution outlawing deficit spending. Most members of this committee are keenly aware of the need for a balanced-budget requirement, so I will not dwell on it.

Deficit spending is an unconscionable form of fiscal child abuse. There are hundreds of groups in Washington that pretend to speak for the interests of children. But who in Washington, among the thousands of powerful special-interest lobbyists and self-proclaimed do-gooders, speaks for the children who are going to have to pay off our irresponsible debts? The single most pro-child policy that any of us can pursue in Washington today is to reduce the crushing burden of debt our government is now preparing to place on the next generation's backs.

I sincerely wish that we did not need a constitutional amendment to cure Washington's addiction to red ink. Unfortunately, the destruction of our nation's once firmly held moral rule against deficit spending--what James Buchanan called "the collapse of the constitutional consensus"--requires us to amend our Constitution and command Congress to do what it used to feel honor bound to do--balance the budget.

Tax-and-spend opponents of a balanced-budget amendment argue that a constitutional requirement is just "a gimmick." No one really believes that. If the amendment were a gimmick, Congress would have approved it long ago. Defense contractors, corporate lobbyists, federal workers, teachers' unions, the welfare industry, and other powerful special-interest groups ferociously attack the amendment, not because they think it won't work, but because they shudder at the thought that it will. What frightens the predator economy in Washington is that gift-bearing politicians may have the federal credit card taken away from them.

The U.S. House of Representatives last year wisely approved a balanced-budget amendment, but it was defeated in the Senate. The matter is now out of your hands. The real issue is, What can be done in the meantime to make the budget process work better and to end deficit spending?

Last year the House passed a courageous budget, crafted by Budget Committee chairman John Kasich, that promised a balanced budget by 2002. But one thing is a virtual certainty: no matter how sincere your intentions of balancing the budget, the deficit will not be eliminated by 2002 unless new budget enforcement rules are implemented to ensure that this admirable, though minimal, goal is honored.

I would urge that a new budget act contain the following seven provisions, which are discussed in order of priority.

1.) An Enforceable Legislative Balanced-Budget Requirement

Don't wait for a balanced-budget amendment. Act now. The most urgent reform for this Congress to undertake is passage of a balanced-budget law that enforces the deficit targets established in the House budget resolution.

What I have in mind is a new Gramm-Rudman-Hollings formula that establishes iron-clad enforceable deficit targets. One of the great myths in Washington is that Gramm-Rudman was repealed because it wasn't working. Gramm-Rudman was repealed by the pro-spending constituencies in Congress precisely because it was working too well.

Gramm-Rudman was enacted in 1985, when Congress was under intense public pressure to immediately reform the budget and reduce the $200 billion budget deficit. The controversial law required Congress to balance the budget by 1991 by meeting a series of annual deficit reduction targets. If Congress missed those targets, the law would trigger automatic spending cuts--a process called "sequestration"--to reduce the deficit to the mandated level.

Critics charge that the act was a dismal failure because Congress continually veered off the balanced-budget track. It is true that Congress routinely missed the deficit targets. Actual deficits under Gramm-Rudman were, on average, about $30 billion per year above maximum deficit targets.

Still, Gramm-Rudman had a positive effect on the federal budget. The best way to measure its impact is to compare the actual deficits recorded during the five years the act was in effect with what the deficit was projected to be by the Congressional Budget Office without Gramm-Rudman. The 1989 deficit was about $100 billion lower than had been expected in 1985 without Gramm-Rudman. The deficit fell from 6 to 3 percent of GDP under Gramm-Rudman.

The most dramatic effect of Gramm-Rudman was to curb government expenditures. Government spending in the five years before the act grew at a rate of 8.7 percent, but it slowed to only 3.2 percent in the five years Gramm-Rudman was in effect. Even entitlement spending was curtailed under Gramm-Rudman to a 5 percent growth rate, because Congress realized that if it allowed programs like Medicare and Medicaid to rise uncontrollably, that would eat up the rest of the budget and cause painful automatic cuts in discretionary spending.

Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) and House Majority Leader **CENSORED** Armey have introduced legislation to restore many of the features of Gramm-Rudman. The most vital reform is a series of deficit reduction targets that, if missed, would trigger automatic across-the-board spending cuts--a sequester. I would urge that any new sequester process include all federal outlays except interest payments and Social Security benefits. That would impose a much-needed dose of discipline on the budget process.

Table 1: 40 Years of Government Growth

Billions of 1995 Dollars

1955   1995   Real Growth
1955-95 (%)
National defense   242.8   271.6   11.9
Health   1.7   272.4   16,374.2
Income security   28.8   223.0   674.0
Social Security   25.2   336.1   1,236.4
Education & social services   2.5   56.1   2,117.4
Vetrans' benefits   26.6   38.4   44.5
Community development   0.7   12.6   1,618.8
Interest   27.6   234.2   750.0
Int'l affairs   12.6   18.7   48.2
Science & Technology   0.4   17.0   3,937.8
Agriculture   20.0   14.4   -27.9
Justice & general govt.   5.2   32.1   523.4
Transportation   7.1   39.2   453.1
Energy & natural resources   7.2   26.5   268.4
Offsetting recipts   -19.8   -41.4   108.6
Total Outlays   388.9   1,538.9   295.7
2.) A Supermajority Requirement to Raise Taxes

Americans have been hit with 12 tax hikes in the past 20 years; each one has succeeded in further expanding the size of government rather than reducing the debt. Requiring a three-fifths or two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to pass a tax increase would allow Congress to pass tax hikes in cases of national emergency but would make it very difficult for Uncle Sam to continue the annual ritual of peacetime tax hikes. Several states, including Arizona, California, and Oklahoma, have enacted such measures; they have stopped tax increases dead in their tracks. As one Arizona taxpayer advocate of the supermajority requirement recently told me, "Now the legislature doesn't even bother to propose new taxes."

Congress passed the part of the "Contract with America" that promised new rules requiring a 60 percent vote to raise income taxes. That was a good start. But now that hurdle should be made to apply to all revenue-raising bills.

3.) National Referendum on All Tax Increases

Another populist budget reform that is sweeping the states is the requirement that any tax increase be ratified by a popular vote of the people in the next election. That gives the taxpayers veto power over the state legislature's efforts to raise taxes. Congress, too, should be forced to take its case to the people when it wants to take more dollars out of our paychecks. It is a virtual certainty that George Bush and Bill Clinton's wildly unpopular record tax increases would have been blocked if such a rule had been in effect.

Minority Leader **CENSORED** Gephardt deserves hearty congratulations for suggesting this reform as part of his 10 percent tax plan. Perhaps a bipartisan consensus could emerge on the issue.

4.) Dynamic Scoring of Tax Law Changes

The 1986 capital gains tax rate increase has raised roughly $100 billion less revenue than the Joint Tax Committee estimated when the law was passed. Capital gains realizations are less than half the level expected, as shown in Figure 2. Why such gigantic forecasting errors? Congress still uses static analysis to score tax rate changes--that is, it assumes little change in behavior in response to tax changes and thus almost no overall economic impact of new tax laws. The assumptions have been shown time and again to be wrong. We know the procedures are wrong, but we still use them.

The capital gains tax cut promised in the "Contract with America" will almost certainly raise revenues for the government--and it might raise substantial new revenues. The rich will actually pay more taxes with the rate cut. But the Joint Tax Committee refuses to score those dynamic effects. Scholars at the Cato Institute have long endorsed a zero capital gains tax. But the static revenue estimators say that will reduce revenues by $150 billion over five years. Dynamic estimates indicate that a zero capital gains tax would so energize our economy that total tax revenues might actually increase. But as long as we are slaves to static scoring, pro-growth tax initiatives will be torpedoed by faulty computer models.

Dynamic scoring will yield more accurate tax revenue estimates and thus encourage better policy.


5.) An End to Baseline Budgeting

A 4.5 percent increase in spending on the School Lunch Program is a budget increase, not a budget "cut." Baseline budgeting is a fraud. Lee Iacocca once stated that if business used baseline budgeting the way Congress does, "they'd throw us in jail."

It's time to end the false and misleading advertising in the budget. Congress should be required to use this year's actual spending total as the baseline for the next year's budget. If Congress spends more next year than it did in the current year, it is increasing the budget; if it spends less, it is cutting it.

6.) A Statute of Limitation on All Spending Programs

It has been said that the closest thing to immortality on this earth is a government program. Congress doesn't know how to end programs--even years and years after their missions have been accomplished. A five-year sunset provision should apply to every spending program in the budget--both entitlements and discretionary programs. That would require the true "reinvention" of programs by forcing the reexamination of every program, including entitlements, every five years.

7.) Debt Buy-Down Provision

This is Rep. Bob Walker's idea that would allow taxpayers to dedicate up to 10 percent of their income tax payments to retirement of the national debt. Politicians earmark spending all the time. Taxpayers should have the same right.
Rules Matter

Those budget process reforms are vitally important to the balanced-budget exercise because the rules of the game matter. The rules dictate outcomes. For more than 20 years, forces that favor spending have consistently prevailed over forces that favor fiscal restraint. That pro-spending bias in Washington threatens to cripple our nation's economic future.

Let me conclude by retelling a story about the late great Washington Redskins football coach George Allen. Allen lived by the motto "the future is now." He traded all the Redskins draft picks for over-the-hill veterans. He spent millions of dollars of owner Jack Kent Cooke's money to purchase expensive free agents. After several years of that, Cooke finally fired Allen. When asked why, Cooke responded, "When George Allen came to Washington I gave him an unlimited budget. But George managed to exceed it." That's the way taxpayers now feel about our politicians in Washington.

This article originally appeared in the July/August 1996 edition of Cato Policy Report.

[Dolorous Jason]

Yes, but do you think it is accurate?  Note the source - it is Limbaugh and he a prince of overstatement

It's hard to imagine and he is the prince of overstatement.  Conceptually he is right, but could the numbers be that significant? What is the national spend this year, if you apply a 3-10% increase how much is that and then take it out each year for a decade, compounded.  Could be right . . . ugh . . .  depressing

Have no fear. CBW plans to raise a few million more in revenue.

[VinBucFan]

Yes, but do you think it is accurate?  Note the source - it is Limbaugh and he a prince of overstatement

It's hard to imagine and he is the prince of overstatement.  Conceptually he is right, but could the numbers be that significant? What is the national spend this year, if you apply a 3-10% increase how much is that and then take it out each year for a decade, compounded.  Could be right . . . ugh . . .  depressing

Have no fear. CBW plans to raise a few million more in revenue.

I was just wondering what someone like CBW would think of this fact (from DBuc's article):

"The most dramatic effect of Gramm-Rudman was to curb government expenditures. Government spending in the five years before the act grew at a rate of 8.7 percent, but it slowed to only 3.2 percent in the five years Gramm-Rudman was in effect. Even entitlement spending was curtailed under Gramm-Rudman to a 5 percent growth rate, because Congress realized that if it allowed programs like Medicare and Medicaid to rise uncontrollably, that would eat up the rest of the budget and cause painful automatic cuts in discretionary spending."

[CBWx2]

Incorrect. Just because I support someones right to do something, it does not mean I support them doing it. A person has a right to be an ass, I wouldn't recommend or support it though.

Let's take a look at Unions. As I said I support a workers right to join a Union. I also support a workers right NOT to join a union. That is something that the "collective" does not take kindly too and end up discriminating against. Unfortunately when you wage identity politics that is the inevitable result. I believe there is a place for Unions but not in their current form. I do not support the manner in which they currently operate or their current activities.

I pegged you wrong then, spartan. My apologies for that. I thought initially that you were masking a liberal position with conservative rhetoric, but I think I may have actually had that backwards. It looks as though you are actually masking a conservative position by framing it in a less conservative manor. If you support the rights of individuals to join a union, but don't support the rights of the union, then you are essentially rendering that liberty useless. It's akin to supporting one's right to possess marijuana, but opposing their right to smoke it. You can't have it both ways. You cannot take the position that it is okay for individuals to form a group, but not okay to recognize the rights of that group. You are indirectly denying them the right to form a group by making the formation of groups a fruitless endeavor.

You consider me to be extreme when in reality all I do for the most part is disagree in what you believe. That does not make me out of the "mainstream," especially when half the country consider themselves to be conservative. For example you think I am extreme because I do not support gay marriage. I'm Catholic and to Catholics marriage is a sacrament.  I have not even disagreed with gays being bestowed with certain rights and privileges that is akin to those provided by marriage. In fact I am on record in supporting that. How is that extreme?

I haven't called you extreme based on any one issue. It is my personal observation based on the whole of all issues that have been discussed. Like I said, I don't know you personally, so all I have to go on is things stated within the confines of this MB. It may not be 100% accurate, but it's the only conclusion that I have been able to draw with the information that I have.

I take your point about the individual being representative of a group, but after that we go down different paths. My answer is to protect the rights of the individual, like the manner in which the 19th Amendment was implement. Instead of saying women can vote, you say it cannot be denied based on sex.

Again, you are making a distinction where there is not one. Amendments are usually worded in such a way that has the broadest reach, as not to be ommisive. The 13th Amendment, for example, didn't just say that the slaves were free, it  outlawed the act of enslavement so that no one could be affected by it currently or in the future.

The type of governance I advocate is one that is currently being practiced in one form or another by the majority of industrialized nations.

Last I checked that doesn't seem to be working out too well.

It isn't working out to well economically for any country right now, last I checked. We are in the middle of a global recession. A recession that was neither caused by or is being bolstered by the size of any particular country's government. In fact, countries with the largest social safety nets, such Germany, and the Scandinavian countries, are the ones that have experienced the fastest recoveries.

The definition of extreme is something that extends far beyond the norm. If the majority of industrialized nations practice it, then it's not extreme. The truth is that American conservatism is extreme when compared to conservatism in the rest of the world.

So when half the worlds population were subjected to Communist dictatorships, being a democracy was "extreme?"

Half the world's population being in communist countries is an interesting way to phrase it. Given the sheer size of China and the former Soviet Union, you are basically talking about only a handful of countries in that summation. Even though half the world's population was communist, the vast majority of the world's governments were not. So no, being in a democracy was not extreme. Being a communist was, and still is.

[Dolorous Jason]

It isn't working out to well economically for any country right now, last I checked. We are in the middle of a global recession. A recession that was neither caused by or is being bolstered by the size of any particular country's government.

Bwahahahha.....sure it wasn't

[spartan]

Incorrect. Just because I support someones right to do something, it does not mean I support them doing it. A person has a right to be an ass, I wouldn't recommend or support it though.

Let's take a look at Unions. As I said I support a workers right to join a Union. I also support a workers right NOT to join a union. That is something that the "collective" does not take kindly too and end up discriminating against. Unfortunately when you wage identity politics that is the inevitable result. I believe there is a place for Unions but not in their current form. I do not support the manner in which they currently operate or their current activities.

I pegged you wrong then, spartan. My apologies for that. I thought initially that you were masking a liberal position with conservative rhetoric, but I think I may have actually had that backwards. It looks as though you are actually masking a conservative position by framing it in a less conservative manor. If you support the rights of individuals to join a union, but don't support the rights of the union, then you are essentially rendering that liberty useless. It's akin to supporting one's right to possess marijuana, but opposing their right to smoke it. You can't have it both ways. You cannot take the position that it is okay for individuals to form a group, but not okay to recognize the rights of that group. You are indirectly denying them the right to form a group by making the formation of groups a fruitless endeavor.

This demonstrates where we differ. I don't think Unions have any rights. The members of the Union do.

You consider me to be extreme when in reality all I do for the most part is disagree in what you believe. That does not make me out of the "mainstream," especially when half the country consider themselves to be conservative. For example you think I am extreme because I do not support gay marriage. I'm Catholic and to Catholics marriage is a sacrament.  I have not even disagreed with gays being bestowed with certain rights and privileges that is akin to those provided by marriage. In fact I am on record in supporting that. How is that extreme?

I haven't called you extreme based on any one issue. It is my personal observation based on the whole of all issues that have been discussed. Like I said, I don't know you personally, so all I have to go on is things stated within the confines of this MB. It may not be 100% accurate, but it's the only conclusion that I have been able to draw with the information that I have.

I take your point about the individual being representative of a group, but after that we go down different paths. My answer is to protect the rights of the individual, like the manner in which the 19th Amendment was implement. Instead of saying women can vote, you say it cannot be denied based on sex.

Again, you are making a distinction where there is not one. Amendments are usually worded in such a way that has the broadest reach, as not to be ommisive. The 13th Amendment, for example, didn't just say that the slaves were free, it  outlawed the act of enslavement so that no one could be affected by it currently or in the future.

Again I take your point, but int his case the 13th Amendment refers to "the party" which alludes to the individual rather than a group. That however could be construed as a matter of semantics so I will fall back to what I stated that I prefer, that is  the manner in which the 19th was worded.

The type of governance I advocate is one that is currently being practiced in one form or another by the majority of industrialized nations.

Last I checked that doesn't seem to be working out too well.

It isn't working out to well economically for any country right now, last I checked. We are in the middle of a global recession. A recession that was neither caused by or is being bolstered by the size of any particular country's government. In fact, countries with the largest social safety nets, such Germany, and the Scandinavian countries, are the ones that have experienced the fastest recoveries.

I would beg to differ. I think the financial crisis in Europe right now has been caused by following exactly the policies that you espouse. Europe is currently "running out of someone else's money." Simple as that. And those examples you used are doing well because they are moving away from those principles.

The definition of extreme is something that extends far beyond the norm. If the majority of industrialized nations practice it, then it's not extreme. The truth is that American conservatism is extreme when compared to conservatism in the rest of the world.

So when half the worlds population were subjected to Communist dictatorships, being a democracy was "extreme?"

Half the world's population being in communist countries is an interesting way to phrase it. Given the sheer size of China and the former Soviet Union, you are basically talking about only a handful of countries in that summation. Even though half the world's population was communist, the vast majority of the world's governments were not. So no, being in a democracy was not extreme. Being a communist was, and still is.

[/quote]

But a majority of the population of the world lived in and supported communism. My point is a 'majority" is and whatever we define it to be. And, just because a "majority" thinks it is a good idea, doesn't necessarily make it so. That is why I am a big fan of the democratic process but not so much of democracy as a form of Govt. I think the founding fathers got it right with a representative Govt based on democratic principles. That way, the sheep have a way to prevent themselves becoming lunch. Which, is what I think just happened.

[CBWx2]

  You can't possibly raise enough revenue to put a dent in it , dumb ass. Even if you tax millionares at 100% . It's basic math.  SO I will ask you again , since you keep dodging the question : What specific programs would you be willing to cut in order to actually balance the budget ?? You can combine your totals with the miniscule increase you'd recieve in a tax hike. Let's hear the numbers. After all , it's basic math...

Yes, it is basic math. For starters, you are dealing with an artificially inflated number as your starting point, dumb ass. If you factor in the lost revenues that are the result of us being in the middle of a deep recession, revenues that will bolster inlays once the economy rebounds, which many economists suggested would take place within the next 4 years regardless of who won the presidency, and when you factor in the 4 trillion dollars (closer to 5 trillion when you add the interest) that has been spent over the last decade on Bush's wars that was kept off budget during Bush's term to make his deficits look smaller than they actually were, and have been added onto the budget during Obama's term, that are due to drop off the budget as a result of the wars ending, you are already talking anywhere between 600 and 700 billion dollars of the deficit due to fall off without anything even having to be done in Washington.

That's just about half of your deficit right there. And these aren't my numbers, these are the numbers. When you look at IRS projections, the projected deficit shrinks from the 1.3 trillion dollar range to the 600 billion dollar range by fiscal year 2014 already, and that isn't accounting for any additional revenues from a tax hike or any additional cuts yet to be negotiated. This also doesn't factor in the stimulus, which was a one time outlay that was budgeted to count against the deficit over a 10 year period, which will be paid off by 2019. The deficit is large, but maneagable, despite the scare tactics from you and your Libertarian brothren who's primary motivation is to eliminate entitlements and shrink taxes, and are willing to use misinformation to acheive that end.

[Dolorous Jason]

  You can't possibly raise enough revenue to put a dent in it , dumb ass. Even if you tax millionares at 100% . It's basic math.  SO I will ask you again , since you keep dodging the question : What specific programs would you be willing to cut in order to actually balance the budget ?? You can combine your totals with the miniscule increase you'd recieve in a tax hike. Let's hear the numbers. After all , it's basic math...

Yes, it is basic math. For starters, you are dealing with an artificially inflated number as your starting point, dumb ass. If you factor in the lost revenues that are the result of us being in the middle of a deep recession, revenues that will bolster inlays once the economy rebounds, which many economists suggested would take place within the next 4 years regardless of who won the presidency, and when you factor in the 4 trillion dollars (closer to 5 trillion when you add the interest) that has been spent over the last decade on Bush's wars that was kept off budget during Bush's term to make his deficits look smaller than they actually were, and have been added onto the budget during Obama's term, that are due to drop off the budget as a result of the wars ending, you are already talking anywhere between 600 and 700 billion dollars of the deficit due to fall off without anything even having to be done in Washington.

That's just about half of your deficit right there. And these aren't my numbers, these are the numbers. When you look at IRS projections, the projected deficit shrinks from the 1.3 trillion dollar range to the 600 billion dollar range by fiscal year 2014 already, and that isn't accounting for any additional revenues from a tax hike or any additional cuts yet to be negotiated. This also doesn't factor in the stimulus, which was a one time outlay that was budgeted to count against the deficit over a 10 year period, which will be paid off by 2019. The deficit is large, but maneagable, despite the scare tactics from you and your Libertarian brothren who's primary motivation is to eliminate entitlements and shrink taxes, and are willing to use misinformation to acheive that end.

Wow. You truly are a sheeple of epic proportions.

So the deficit projection is now a "measely" 600 billion ( if you believe the U.S. government projections , because the government has never been wrong on it's budget projections and spent much more in the past. Never. LOL ) , plus the "measely"  17 trillion you already owe. "Very Manageable" indeed.

I'll ask you again.  What are you going to cut ?  It's basic bath .

[Chief Joseph]

 " if a state continued to be ass-backwards , then they would eventually see the consequences as people voted with thier feet and continued to leave for more tolerant , and thereby more prosperous states. "

 Brings about an inevitable lack of cohesiveness in the union.

 " You cannot take the position that it is okay for individuals to form a group, but not okay to recognize the rights of that group."

 Problems begin when the rights of the group are elevated over that of the individual. The backbone of any union contract is that it appoints them exclusive negotiation rights. The union will negotiate direct contribution from the employer towards pension and health care   , forcing the employer to pay that money to the union, instead of allowing non-union employees the decision on whether they wish to participate. The rights of the individual have been subjugated to the "rights" of the group. And it's standard practice.

 It's hilarious that the biggest politically active extremist on this board doesn't realize he's an extremist.

[Dolorous Jason]

 " if a state continued to be ass-backwards , then they would eventually see the consequences as people voted with thier feet and continued to leave for more tolerant , and thereby more prosperous states. "

 Brings about an inevitable lack of cohesiveness in the union.

 " You cannot take the position that it is okay for individuals to form a group, but not okay to recognize the rights of that group."

 Problems begin when the rights of the group are elevated over that of the individual. The backbone of any union contract is that it appoints them exclusive negotiation rights. The union will negotiate direct contribution from the employer towards pension and health care   , forcing the employer to pay that money to the union, instead of allowing non-union employees the decision on whether they wish to participate. The rights of the individual have been subjugated to the "rights" of the group. And it's standard practice.

 It's hilarious that the biggest politically active extremist on this board doesn't realize he's an extremist.

Wasn't that a ridiculous quote by CBW ?? LOL

It just drips of stupidity . The only "right" he is really referring to is the "right" for the majority to trounce the minority with it's sheer numbers , which isn't a right at all.

[CBWx2]

  You can't possibly raise enough revenue to put a dent in it , dumb ass. Even if you tax millionares at 100% . It's basic math.  SO I will ask you again , since you keep dodging the question : What specific programs would you be willing to cut in order to actually balance the budget ?? You can combine your totals with the miniscule increase you'd recieve in a tax hike. Let's hear the numbers. After all , it's basic math...

Yes, it is basic math. For starters, you are dealing with an artificially inflated number as your starting point, dumb ass. If you factor in the lost revenues that are the result of us being in the middle of a deep recession, revenues that will bolster inlays once the economy rebounds, which many economists suggested would take place within the next 4 years regardless of who won the presidency, and when you factor in the 4 trillion dollars (closer to 5 trillion when you add the interest) that has been spent over the last decade on Bush's wars that was kept off budget during Bush's term to make his deficits look smaller than they actually were, and have been added onto the budget during Obama's term, that are due to drop off the budget as a result of the wars ending, you are already talking anywhere between 600 and 700 billion dollars of the deficit due to fall off without anything even having to be done in Washington.

That's just about half of your deficit right there. And these aren't my numbers, these are the numbers. When you look at IRS projections, the projected deficit shrinks from the 1.3 trillion dollar range to the 600 billion dollar range by fiscal year 2014 already, and that isn't accounting for any additional revenues from a tax hike or any additional cuts yet to be negotiated. This also doesn't factor in the stimulus, which was a one time outlay that was budgeted to count against the deficit over a 10 year period, which will be paid off by 2019. The deficit is large, but maneagable, despite the scare tactics from you and your Libertarian brothren who's primary motivation is to eliminate entitlements and shrink taxes, and are willing to use misinformation to acheive that end.

Wow. You truly are a sheeple of epic proportions.

So the deficit projection is now a "measely" 600 billion ( if you believe the U.S. government projections , because the government has never been wrong on it's budget projections and spent much more in the past. Never. LOL ) , plus the "measely"  17 trillion you already owe. "Very Manageable" indeed.

I'll ask you again.  What are you going to cut ?  It's basic bath .

Not sure why you put "measly" in quotations in regards to my post, given that I never used the word.

Before we get to cuts, lets deal with the real deficit, not the deficit that is being temporarily inflated by expenditures that are not expected to affect the deficit even two years from now. The payroll tax holiday is set to expire in 2013, and is not expected to be renewed. This adds another 115 billion in revenues before we've even had to do anything. Hell, just letting the Bush tax cuts expire in their entirety would generate 484 billion yearly in added revenue. That would get us somewhere in the neighborhood of needing to find 100- 200 billion or so dollars in cuts to balance the budget by 2014. Shave 15% from the military budget, and find an additional 50 billion in cuts to entitlements, and you're already there without having to enact major slashes to the government.

But there's yet a third option. Ironically, if we actually adopted one of the things that Romney campaigned on, eliminating many of the deductions, tax credits and other loopholes written into the tax code, you could essentially flip the budget from deficit to surplus by 2014 before you even had to cut a single thing. (Romney's biggest fail was that he accompanied this idea with a massive tax cut that actually would have costed more in lost revenues than eliminating the deductions would have generated).

I have no problem with cuts when cuts are necessary. I'd even favor massive cuts if they were necessary. But they are not, despite the cons best efforts to scare the hell out of everybody into thinking that they are. You don't need to find 17 trillion dollars immediately to avoid a debt crisis. That's another false dichotomy. Goal one is to flip the deficit to a surplus, and then to apply that surplus to addressing the national debt over the long term. If we had simply stayed on the economic track that we were on prior to the Bush presidency, we would have paid off roughly 1.5 trillion dollars of the national debt by now, instead of having raised it an additional 10 trillion.

[Chief Joseph]

 So, going deeper into debt every year at a record breaking pace is somehow going to leave us debt free in the long term? Now that's a solid plan.

[Chief Joseph]

Solving our problems isn't nearly as important as figuring out how to blame them on Bush.

You know, I just can't figure out why everyone thinks you're an extremist.

[spartan]

Not sure why you put "measly" in quotations in regards to my post, given that I never used the word.

Before we get to cuts, lets deal with the real deficit, not the deficit that is being temporarily inflated by expenditures that are not expected to affect the deficit even two years from now. The payroll tax holiday is set to expire in 2013, and is not expected to be renewed. This adds another 115 billion in revenues before we've even had to do anything. Hell, just letting the Bush tax cuts expire in their entirety would generate 484 billion yearly in added revenue. That would get us somewhere in the neighborhood of needing to find 100- 200 billion or so dollars in cuts to balance the budget by 2014. Shave 15% from the military budget, and find an additional 50 billion in cuts to entitlements, and you're already there without having to enact major slashes to the government.

But there's yet a third option. Ironically, if we actually adopted one of the things that Romney campaigned on, eliminating many of the deductions, tax credits and other loopholes written into the tax code, you could essentially flip the budget from deficit to surplus by 2014 before you even had to cut a single thing. (Romney's biggest fail was that he accompanied this idea with a massive tax cut that actually would have costed more in lost revenues than eliminating the deductions would have generated).

I have no problem with cuts when cuts are necessary. I'd even favor massive cuts if they were necessary. But they are not, despite the cons best efforts to scare the hell out of everybody into thinking that they are. You don't need to find 17 trillion dollars immediately to avoid a debt crisis. That's another false dichotomy. Goal one is to flip the deficit to a surplus, and then to apply that surplus to addressing the national debt over the long term. If we had simply stayed on the economic track that we were on prior to the Bush presidency, we would have paid off roughly 1.5 trillion dollars of the national debt by now, instead of having raised it an additional 10 trillion.

So your solution to resolving the deficit is to essentially raise taxes by a $trillion a year. In short a 30% increase for everyone? Did you consider the impact that might have?

[CBWx2]

Solving our problems isn't nearly as important as figuring out how to blame them on Bush.

You know, I just can't figure out why everyone thinks you're an extremist.

Everybody doesn't think I'm extremist. You cons on this MB do. Oh yeah. I forgot. You aren't a conservative.