I don't believe that a strictly balanced budget is necessarily a good idea. It doesn't leave enough wiggle room. Instead, I'd like to see limits that allow a little deficit spending when it's necessary, but keep it in check. For example, allow deficit spending, but never more than say 10% of the budget, and don't allow deficit spending to go on for more than X number of years in a row. And set a hard cap on the national debt as a portion of GDP.
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
You can dance without a lawyer
If you were worried about debt you would support David Stockman's one time wealth tax on the top 5%. just 15% would cut our debt in half overnight. It's not about debt it's about cutting programs you don't like. You wouldn't be a Republican if you didn't approve of more and more debt. You saw the chart I posted didn't you?
Nice try. I'm not a Republican. The reason I am not a Republican is because almost all of them are just about as fiscally idiotic as their counterparts on the left.It's not about debt it's about cutting programs you don't like. You wouldn't be a Republican if you didn't approve of more and more debt. You saw the chart I posted didn't you?
Last edited by Neomalthusian; 07-16-12 at 04:49 PM.
I would like to see all Federal Spending reduced to the levels of 2008. If a program or expenditure did not exist in 2008, cut it completely.
All wage rates and head counts cut back to the levels prevailing in 2008. Real dollars. Not adjusted for inflation. That is a good placed to start.
Once that is accomplished, reduce all expenditures by 10%. All of them. No exceptions.
From that point forward, no shopping cart legislation. One particular bill presented and approved at a time. If there are 1000 projects in the highway bill, then vote on each one of them. Make every expenditure based on 0 baseline budgeting. If there is anything to be spent, then make the vote on that one thing.
Since the Senate can only pass about 60 bills per year, 30 if Ried is in charge, we'd balance the budget in no time at all.
Revenue should go up when the economy bounces back, and that's the time to start trimming government. Ironically, it's the opposite of business. If you trim government when times are good, then you start with a smaller government at the next downturn.
The problem in the US is that the two major parties are mostly only good at growing government. Last time there was growth, taxes were slashed and spending wasn't. So the hole is bigger because now we're in a situation where we shouldn't be raising taxes or cutting spending.
Why in one paragraph do you propose something that would grind the wheels of government to a halt (voting on every expenditure individually), then in the next you criticize Harry Reid for not whipping them through? Which do you want? (Also, FYI, if the Senate did pass bill after bill, they'd have to be passed by the House also before becoming law. What do you think the chances of that are right now?)
Also, "adjusted for inflation" is real dollars. Today we think the dollar store is a great bargain. In 1950, it would have been a colossal rip-off.
My caveat to a balanced budget amendment would, like many others, include an exception during Declared War but I would also put a mandatory defence spending clause. Say around 5% of the GDP during peace time. A properly maintained, equiped and trained military is a necessity.
Clinton and the Republican congress did finally balance the budget, but it decimated the military. Under Clinton, the military did not replace antiquated systems, maintenance cost continued to rise on these old systems while the budget was cut. This led to most, if not all organisations having a part of it's inventory non functional as parts were moved to keep other systems working. Some Naval Aviation units were unable fly for long periods of time because they had no fuel or maintenance budgets for up to 6 months at a time. Live fire weapons training, in the Air Force at least, was restricted to only those deploying, and even then only once every two years, the security police had slightly different training models.