Whether you've been writing about it for decades or not, a $5 billion tax cut right now primarily benefitting the rich is an outrageous ignoring of the problem and will increase the debt by trillions.
It's an objective fact that the highest rise in after-tax income by percentage is to the top quintiles. The top 10% get more of a break than the middle quintile.
4. #2 violated a long standing Front Porch rule. You are not allowed to personally attack your host or long-standing members of the front porch. So, we have a few options here. (a) You can apologize and delete your insult. (b) You can clarify your remark to make it clear you are not in violation of one of the very few rules we have here. (c) If you do not complete (a) or (b), you will be permanently banned from commenting here.
The people who bought the government Treasury bonds...Japan, China, etc. It is possible to deny or default the debt, but that results in catastrophes of various types.
COS -Amen! I mentioned this at the Mark Steyn club and was met with icy disdain over a "runaway convention", which isn't possible. The sooner the better - amen.
A Constitutional Convention would most likely be run by, well...the People in Charge. Congressmen, Senators, Lobbyists with deep pockets, Swampsters. Things are screwed up because of broken trust. Can we trust these people to do the right thing? I don't trust them. No matter how simon-pure their intentions are, they'll wake up to the reality they are turning in their license to steal and derailing the gravy train. We could end up with King Hunter the First as our monarch with Minister Schumer as Regent until Hunter I finishes rehab. Constitution Conventions scare me, Tim.
Fair enough, Jeff. Article V allows the convening of a Convention to tinker with the Constitution. Call it an Article V Convention, state convention, amendatory convention, a federal convention, a constitutional convention or even a cabal of imperious nabobs bent on Fundamental Change. Tah-may-toe, toe-mah-tow. We did have a “Constitutional Convention” in 1787, but none since then to my knowledge. But I am with you in advocating for precision in language. Am going to call it an Article V Convention for now on. While that may not achieve clarity for some, it might steer them to the source document.
I do think it could turn out worse than our present situation. On the other hand, we are certainly screwed if we do nothing. I don't like to think of myself as cynical. It's more like I have had my better nature soured by the institutions and the people in charge violating the trust we put into them. I am thinking that when you get a certain age if you haven't acquired some amount of cynicism, you just weren't paying attention.
I hesitate to explain the process; go to the convention of states website to learn more. The notion of a "runaway" convention was long ago concocted by congressmen to scare the people, and it seems to have worked.
The shouting of alarums can get you trampled to death in a crowded movie theater or save you from being eaten by a hungry tiger. Kind of a balancing act to weigh time constraints to react and investigating the trustworthiness of the source. I've been habituated into a default level of distrust when people with toothy smiles and secret handshakes convene in large groups. Having a little fright in your life, despite the annoyance, can be a survival trait.
The Constitution we have (less amendments) was produced by a runaway Convention which was convened to propose amendments to make the Articles of Confederation work better.
I love every bit of this except I have to respectfully disagree with you on the term limits piece. I’ve had this debate many times over the years, but having had to climb it myself, it’s really hard to overstate how steep the learning curve is for members of Congress who are responsible for having a basic working knowledge of every department and issue under the sun as well as the institution itself. Moreover the vital (and missing these days) importance of personal relationships and trust built across the aisle over time. Major reforms really only work, or certainly works best, when both sides hold hands and walk the political plank together.
On the first point regarding institutional knowledge and subject matter expertise, to use the military as one analogy, it would be like saying that the answer to procurement challenges faced by DOD could be easily solved by limiting all service chiefs and senior officers to those who had been in the military for only 8 years or less. We won’t allow any service members whatsoever to serve longer than that. This doesn’t solve the basic incentive structure problems, group think, bureaucratic inertia, etc. Not does it guarantee any particular strength of character or the quality of leadership. It merely serves to guarantee a lack of institutional knowledge and experience for which there is no substitute for time. I wish it were so easy.
All the same, this is a tremendously important message and a very well-articulated piece and I thank you for writing it. Especially the sections 15 years ago!
You say that term limits will kneecap the federal governments ability to legislate? I think that's what the majority of us want. They create too much legislation to start with, add too many riders to buy votes (adding more cost to the bill). Wash, rinse repeat. That is why we are in the predicament we are in now.
I would be a blessing from God if the US legislature passed no new bills except budget appropriations for the existing (and diminishing) government we now have.
And, approaching it from the opposite direction:
Those legislators (and likely staffers) not only get acquainted with their colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but also with a horde of lobbyists which likely do as much as anything in their corruption. While it would be unwise to completely disable the public from petitioning their representatives, one neither wants those close bonds formed by year after year after decade of friendship and campaign contributions.
In a way, congress has already moved in the direction that they would under term limits. Individual members have less control and longevity now, and bureaucracies more. The result isn't so much additional legislation as the congress can't actually oversee the government and is effectively reduced to a rubber stamp.
Just look at the navy.Sure, lobbyists play a role in this, but the concentrated power of of the industry and DoD mean that pretty much every attempt by Congress to control and limit naval programs has failed. In many cases, the navy just contemptuously ignores or subverts the obvious intent of Congress.
Why doesn't Congress pull the plug on stuff? Well, the Navy is putting a gun to their head, right? Hey Congress, we're the experts here, are you really going to defund us and make the nation unprepared for war?!?
Sounds a lot like the Roman Senate in imperial times. They were technically a thing, but they weren't.
And as stated elsewhere, a CoS risks upending the existing Constitutional guarantees and creating a creating an effective dictatorship "for efficiency of governement."
As risky as it may be, one has to weigh that against arguing about whether to turn left or right, slam on the brakes or just close your eyes as you drive over the cliff.
I’m not sure that’s what I said at all. I think I said they’ll just have less idea what they’re doing. The lobbyists and the unelected staff will still be there. They will know exactly what they’re doing and as such, will have vastly more knowledge and influence than the members themselves.
Perhaps that will result in better outcomes and greater accountability. I don’t think so though. At least that was my observation and experience after a decade of serving in the institution.
You can look at recent years for proof. The vast majority of congress right now >75% is in their first or second term. That has remained the case for over a decade at this point. The turnover is much higher than it used to be. Mostly, I would argue, because good and serious people gave up and retired en masse. And because the people on both sides who buck their party and take a principled stand for problem solving are run out of town. Voters, by and large, want fighters, not problem solvers. “No” is always an easier vote to defend than “yes”. And for two generations we’ve wanted politicians who lie to us, tell us pleasant untruths and make unsustainable promises. We punish, by contrast, those who are honest and advocate for genuine reform.
Is the institution healthier these days for all this new blood having come in? Is it healthier because in average they’re serving fewer terms?
They do indeed produce less legislation these days. But has the deficit come down? Have the structural elements of the budget that lead to those deficits been reformed? Has the debate become wiser, more thoughtful, responsible or these individuals more productive at addressing these structural challenges? I would argue not. It’s been less effective at checking the overreach of presidents of both parties. They’ve given up any effort toward real reform. At this point, they can’t even get any appropriations bills done at all anymore.
Turnover itself does not guarantee character, backbone, wisdom, innovation, or leadership. That’s my observation. I wish it were so simple a fix.
Okay, you didn't say term limits would kneecap the government, but what I understood was akin to that.
The one thing that turnover does is eliminate the influence of incumbents that have been in the job for, sometime literally, half a century. It would soften the party allegiances that such longevity tends to create (or it might be a vice versa thing, but it seems effectively the same thing).
I understand the concerns with learning the ins and outs of governance. Though if these folks start in the state legislatures they should have learned something...and it's a natural progression as most states term limit their legislatures. And it's not like some don't go to DC with no relevant experience. There are doctors, ex and retired military (imagine CDR Sal on HASC!), businessmen and folks of all types with relevant experience.
As to the dangers of the permanent government, whether it be the Swamp or the MIC*, yeah that's another concern. But if you can only spend so much, at some point you have to make decisions. The decision tree is going to be different than in the past though. Now I'm sure it's 99% based on what gets you elected again, which means either money coming in (to the campaign fund) or money going out (to constituents...both individual voters and lobby groups). The new decision tree is going to look a lot more like what you promised that got you into office to start with.**
*And lets face it, that permanent government is part of the problem. It needs to be dismantled in near totality. That would solve some of your concerns, I think.
**We should also face the fact that politics is corrupting. I have little doubt that the vast majority of Congressmen and Senators start with firm convictions and the intent to do good for their constituents. But the whispers start immediately: "If you would do this for use...we'll do this for you...you'll get reelected." It sounds good, because you want to get reelected to do the good you intended to do, but eventually the devil owns you.
The country is never in greater danger than when Congress is in session - simply because some people think their job there is to pass legislation, regardless of its value or danger.
Exactly. Criticizing a Congresscritter because they have introduced no legislation does not seem a valid complaint to me. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
At this point in time it seems the best thing they could do is to just say NO to everything.
Dead, but not stupid. Gideon John Tucker (February 10, 1826 – July 1899): "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session."
Rather than term limits, just create a maximum age in which mandatory retirement occurs. We send everyone packing in the US Military by age 70, (maybe one or two very rare exceptions) and most companies send everyone home around age 65 mandatory or voluntary. Create a policy that says you’re done running and serving at age 72, Or name the number, but once you cross the threshold you’re done. We need new blood. We may get it whether we like it or not. That’s how revolutions work. Some less violent than others. But usually there are a lot of youthful advocates and a couple of timers that figure it out and all Hell breaks loose. We will see.
I like my plan. ALL legislation automatically sunsets 6 months after the new Congress is sworn in, unless it it reaffirmed by majority vote in each new Congress (every two years). In order for a vote to occur, the Legislation must be read, in full, including all references to documents or prior legislation, on the House floor with a quorum present. NO "we approve all the previous crap" votes.
If a vote does not occur for ANY active legislation within that six months, and subsequently be approved by the Senate (again having been read fully on the Senate floor), it expires, and is no longer in effect.
Then the President gets to read it and sign it. or it is no longer in effect.
No exceptions. If anything is that important, get to reading out loud. And all active legislation (meaning anything in effect, not in discussion) of them to be posted online fully, all the time
What makes you think the Congress critters who have been around for awhile have a working knowledge of the government? They are a good part of the problem; they have a great knowledge of politics and process but not so great a knowledge of anything else.
Fair enough. But the knuckleheads from NJ that tried to break into the ICE detention center didn't seem to understand how Congressional oversight actually works. And one of them seems to have been in office decades.
There are indeed plenty of idiots who manage to stay a long time. Just as there are senior military officers who shouldn’t have ever achieved their rank. My basic point remains the same - to think that the military would be a better fighting force with very limited experience at the top would strain logic. It’s helpful to have people around who remember the last war, the mistakes made, the lessons learned.
And to your earlier point, we can drop a subject matter expertise straight into a committee and they’ll do great work from (almost) day 1. But a former sailor will also need to be competent enough on bank regulation, the tax code, agriculture policy, air traffic control, energy policy, homeland security, trade agreements, etc etc etc. All of which are complicated, high stakes, expensive issues, full of nuance and detail, and all of which affect millions of lives and livelihoods. A person could spend an entire career working on one narrow piece of any one of those issues and still be learning. So to drop a person straight into the middle of that and ask them to start making thoughtful, informed decisions within weeks simply isn’t possible. It takes time to get spun up.
I had the fortunate experience of getting to work for a veteran lawmaker as my first boss. One who had served a long time in the state legislature and then in congress for a number of years before I showed up. It was a masterclass. She was a wealth of knowledge, experience, relationships, and crucially, an understanding of how to move the ball across the goal line to get things done. When she retired, I stayed on with her successor. Career law enforcement officer who’d become sheriff. Zero legislative experience, but an absolutely rock solid human being. Smart, dedicated, hard working, and patriotic to his core. All three of his sons were serving in the Army. Two West Point graduates. I couldn’t have hoped for a better role model - not as a man or as a leader and to this day have not met anybody more dedicated to this country and what it stands for. Crucially, in my opinion, he was there for all the right reasons. Not because he was particularly enamored with it, but because he’d been asked to run. It wasn’t his idea or his ambition. He ran. He won. And there he was in Washington a couple months later.
But it is indeed a steep learning curve. One that takes years to climb. By the time he retired six years later, he had a really good handle on what was going on across the government and how Congress worked. Had developed relationships. Built a reputation as being a man of his word. Had developed sub-subject matter expertise within his committee. Was very early in advocating for research into directed energy weapons, for instance, recognizing how important that was going to be with electronic warfare coming fast. He had to push hard for years to get HASC to take it more seriously. Then, just as he was getting really good at his job, he retired and the institution (and the American people) lost him as an asset in Washington. Then they had to set about starting all over with a new rookie.
Is Congress better off because he only served six years? Or might the country have been better served if he’d stayed another six or another twenty for that matter?
The answer for me, like any other discipline, is get the best people you can for the job, train them to the best of your ability, and then trust them to get the job done. Our failure, in my opinion, is in not getting that first part right. We don’t attract the best people to run for Congress. So it’s over before it starts. Can’t fix stupid. Can’t fix greedy.
In this way, just cycling more bad people through there more quickly won’t solve the problem. I try to remain open-minded to any suggestions that might make the institution better. Lord knows we need ‘em. But I’m afraid I just don’t see term limits as the key. It’s a really really hard job to learn. Just like most of the jobs out there that really matter.
Well, my 60+ years of observing the results of all that knowledge lead me to think otherwise. And, even if they do have a good working knowledge of *government*, their knowledge of the real world and the effects of government on that real world are sadly lacking. Not to mention the intentional and willful ignorance and dogmatism that seems to be prevalent in our governing class, Dem. or Rep.
I shall cite only one example. Some years ago our knowledgeable Congress placed a luxury tax of 10%(?) on yachts. They were warned that this would harm boat builders large and small on both coasts. It did. (Ask John Kerry why he bought his yacht abroad and, incidentally, why he kept it in Rhode Island instead of Mass.) A few years later, of course, the tax was dropped, but only after a few US boat builders went broke.
I just looked that up this morning due to an argument on X. The 1990 tax bill had an excise tax of 30% on boats over $100k, cars over $30k, and furs over $10k. The other guy blamed it on Reagan ruining his dad's boat business, but it was GHWB who signed it. Smack his damned lips!
" it’s really hard to overstate how steep the learning curve is for members of Congress who are responsible for having a basic working knowledge of every department and issue under the sun as well as the institution itself."
I disagree with the premise that they should. Government is far true intrusive in all aspects of our erstwhile Republic. It should not be doing ANYTHING that an intelligent, professional citizen does not already understand.
I concluded this option earlier this year. Congress is hopelessly bound up controlled by fools. It does not have the ability to fix this. Nor would they even try. I was no fan of the Convention of States but things have gone south too far. Its worth the risk at this point. Trumps not going to save us. 4 States away.
Certainly, getting a BBA & Term Limits in one fell swoop would tremendous, but it would not stop there.
There is no way a new Constitution, & make no mistake, a COS would result in an entirely new Constitution, will respect liberty and the individual as much as the Constitution does.
I do not trust whoever the delegates would be to a COS to not turn the USA into an entirely different country, one that doesn't believe that we, the people, are endowed by our Creator, with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, property, & the pursuit of happiness not least among them.
I agree with your assessment of the problem, but not your proposed solution.
The constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the conduct of a convention for proposing amendments, other than 1) the Congress shall "call a convention" and 2) mode of ratification (state legislatures or state conventions).
There is no parliamentary authority mandated in the Constitution. Let's assume Roberts Rules . So the call to convention. That could be all over the map. How many delegates per state? How are delegates chosen? How are delegates credentialed? Who will draft the proposed special rules for the convention? A convention is its own final authority except when the Constitution mandates otherwise, which again it doesn't. So any final seating of delegates and adoption of special rules is up to the convention itself. It seems clear the final product has to be "amendments", but I don't see any way to prevent "gut and replace" amendments.
On mode of ratification it seems unlikely that Congress would ever mandate the mode of state conventions, but do we know that?
At the end of the day if you can convince 3/4ths of the states to do away with the Constitution, then I guess you can.
You know the Bill of Rights would be gutted. Truly free speech and freedom of assembly are not popular as we have recently seen. Nor are due process and freedom from warrantless seizures and searchess.
You live in a country with the Patriot Act etc and you doubt it? There would be several subtly-tailored “reasonable” amendments limiting each one of the Bill of Rights.
For example, to take a current popular misconception, to take away free speech and due process from non-citizens.
No civil jury trials because “tort reform.”
Limiting “right to bear.”
Writing out NYT v Sullivan from the 1st.
Change 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments because "criminals are getting away with it on technicalities."
The propaganda supporting them would be astounding.
I'm astonished how well the anti-COS propaganda worked. It had to have been cooked up by some infernal government lobbyist group. None of those statements are even remotely associated with how the COS actually works.
This exactly! Why is the concept so hard to understand? Congress has nothing to do with convention of state amendment proposals. Congress does not approve amendments. I have spoken with state legislators that don’t understand this. Ignorance is rampant and that’s the biggest issue of all.
Since we haven't had a COS, we don't know how it actually works.
That's the point. Just pointing to a website and saying "this is how we plan for it to work" is like pointing to the plans for the LCS and saying that's how it will actually work. We don't know.
After 2/3 of the states approve, congress and staff are physically removed from capitol. From each state, two individuals go to DC, one representative and one legislature. The new amendments approved by the 2/3 of states are voted on by all 50 states (100 people). Each amendment requires 3/4 of all states to approve. Effective immediately without any branch of government interfering. No changed amendments, new suggestions, runaway craziness allowed.
The COS can propose any amendments at all. Sky's the limit. But there is a huge restraint.
Ratification.
No matter what amendments a COS proposes, they must still go to the 50 states to be ratified. Good luck getting 38 states to approve a nutty amendment making Jon Stewart king for life, or banning guns and pointy sticks, or imposing the death penalty for misgendering a furry.
That's the check on a so-called "runaway convention."
Estes is right up there, and a further check and also one of the reasons it hasn't happened yet is because so many of the proposals are different, and are effectively different calls for different conventions that don't have the required number of states. The convention is limited to the specific topics in its call unless it specifically states its also open to further changes. While a balanced budget and term limits are not enough by themselves we should still do them, but what is really needed is a series of conventions with each one that gains enough states to proceed discussing a separate proposal on its own.
While I appreciate your alarm, this claim is not true: "Eventually, no one will want to buy our debt, then we have to offer higher and higher interest rates to attract buyers." Those who buy our debt do so because in our country property rights are secure, contracts are enforced and our judiciary who look after such things is not corrupt. As long as that remains the case, foreigners will continue to buy our debt.
Partially, but foreigners also buy our debt because of trade imbalances. All that stuff we import is sold for dollars. So if you own a T-shirt factory in Vietnam or a Nike slave plantation... err factory in China, you get a bunch of dollars. If you don't want to spend it all, buying debt makes a lot of sense.
This is an accounting identity, actually. Guaranteed true.
The implication is that, rather than trade wars or tariffs, there is a very straightforward and obvious ways to reduce the trade deficit; reduce the government deficit. Causation can run either way, but the more obvious way is that, if we aren't issuing so much debt, the terms of trade literally have to improve.
In a famous letter written Dec. 25, 1820, Thomas Jefferson complained that “the Judiciary of the U.S. is the subtle corps of sappers & miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.”
Jefferson and FDR threatened to ignore a decision if the Court ruled against them. Jackson and Lincoln actually did.
That sounds like a "solution" to allowing the federal government to still spend us into oblivion.
Understand that savers, whether they are foreign or domestic being unwilling to voluntarily buy bonds would be a GOOD thing because it would force the government to stop spending recklessly.
If we were to overtly force banks to hold treasuries (something we alarmingly already have to encourage more than we should), that would actually remove an impediment to deficit spending. And break down another free market principle.
What we'd be doing is saying that the government can borrow all they want and private companies would be forced by law to buy the debt. That would lead to more debt, runaway inflation, and a host of other bad things.
"Those who buy our debt do so because in our country property rights are secure, contracts are enforced and our judiciary who look after such things is not corrupt."
The problem is that the Federal Governments problems are mirrored in many of the 50 states. Look at the debt problems in CA, IL, NJ, and others. No, I don’t think the States can save us.
It is truly terrifying to imagine the scale of the fiscal problem across the Federal and State Governments. I don’t see how it ends in anything but disaster.
The fault is with the American people. They elect and re-elect the same candidates. No one wants to sacrifice, don't cut my slice of the pie. Be it Social Security, defense, Medicare, never cut any portion of these sacred cows! Of course when it comes time to raise money, you can raise taxes on any group except mine. Just the rambling thoughts of an old hermit. (Of course the Air Force needs the F-47, F-35, F-22, F-15EX, B-21, B-2, B-1, B-52. The Navy can't build a FFG on time and within budget and let's not mention the Ford Class, Colombia, or my two favorite, the Zumwalt and the LCS. So please, can the DOD get their act together before we conven a convention to change the Constitution. Just the opinion of a retired chief)
And yet, the same illiterate, innumerate, incompetent, and selfish group known as "the American people" by and large manage to elect individuals to their state, county, parish, township, school board, fire protection districts, road commissions, and city governments who are operating without an exponentially increasing debt. Sure! there are individual examples with horrible finances but across the country the vast majority are not in bad shape. It is almost like money from D.C. is considered magic money but that taken as local taxes are directly felt and paid attention to. Distance may make the heart grow fonder but apparently it makes the wallet grow stupid.
Social Security is not funded by Congress, it’s not subject to budget consideration. It is funded by payroll deductions from workers and contributions by their employers. Not everyone making mandatory contributions will be necessarily be paid any benefits. You have to qualify, and once receiving them, remain eligible to continue.
Without a sea change within the electorate, their representatives (a vote for me is a vote for free stuff.) and our mandarin class controlling the levers of power, we're essentially done until the Tytler Cycle starts anew.
1) VA - Take a hard look at disability payments. There are a lot of ways to get a rating - reform that system so that "service connected" payments go to those who truly have a need for additional help.
2) Dual Medicare and Medicaid eligibility -
3) Social Security - Require SSA taxes on total income - not capped @ $176,000 -- simplify the system .. raise the age for full benefits
I paid into it - forced to, as were my employers - so that money is mine. Period. Otherwise, it is outright theft by the federal government.
Now, if you want to start some kind of phase out, with social security deductions reducing (as well as benefits-payable at SS retirement age), beginning at some point prior to SS-retirement age, going to zero for both for 18-yr olds and younger, then we might have a plan.
So essentially SS and Medicare taxes are just taxes. The go into the general fund, not some mythical "lockbox." Congress can do with them as they please.
That said, it's understandable that everyone who has paid in wants their money back as that was what they were told they were taking it for. And for many people, especially with the current high personal deduction on income tax, SS and Medicare is more that what people pay in income tax.
I applaud the sentiment, but it's not our money anymore. They took it by force, stuffed it into a ponzi scheme, and those of us in our 50s are going to be among the first standing without chairs.
Concur completely. I've been describing it as the R and D Conferences of the All Government League. No matter which Conference "wins" any issue in the show, the League ALWAYS wins more power and influence.
Social Security was a Ponzi Scheme from day 1. The money you paid in is not yours; it was used to pay previous retirees. Yeah, I'm collecting SSA; doing my bit to hasten the collapse.
I agree that the debt is the greatest threat to the republic. However, I am not clear how we can mount a proper assault with the constant lying on a daily basis from the narcissistic, sociopathic pretend "leaders". We are governed by political whores that will sell their souls for personal power and greed. Until the G stops undermining the people we are screwed. Just my humble opinion.
Of course the MMT theorists have an answer for all that so you are going to have to, at some point, get an agreement on the theory of money. I don't necessarily buy into MMT, but I will say that I have been hearing my whole life that federal spending, issue of currency and debt instruments, will cause the sky to fall soon. At this point I don't think people view that as credible.
The answer is the same as for a business...you either have to cut spending or increase revenue. It is possible, at this point, to only hold the line on spending (hopefully we can change that in future given we can extricate ourselves). Our answer is revenue and revenue comes from only a few sources - tariffs or taxes on goods and services or income taxes. However, the key is EXPANSION of the economy. If we find a way to grow the economy, to increase revenues without increasing RATES, then we have a chance to increase our revenue (as long as we don't turn around and spend it).
The answer is to go all in on new sources of energy to change the cost equation for companies so it is really, really cheap to operate here vs elsewhere and they can expand (size, products, etc.). We can do this by streamlining the requirement for building SMNRs and letting them grow as a market and by increasing our oil production and keeping it HERE - lowering our gas prices. The boost with lower energy costs, especially re on site power for things like data centers, shipyards, new steel mills, etc., would spur a leap forward in our economy. As the economy grows, tax revenues increase. If we hold spending below the revenue increase we can eke our way out of this over time.
Not suddenly, but gradually.
It also means going back to basics on government - "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." That means spending what is necessary to get the "stand off" services (Navy and Air Force) back into defensive shape to guard CONUS and OCUNUS interests in the only area DEFINED (not subjective) in the preamble - providing for the common defense.
Easier said than done. Our developed system of government, built over what was devised in the Constitution, continually mitigates against such reform. The beast, and its' children, want to be fed and they eat money - or at least control its' distribution for political power.
Very true. My only quibble is with "The answer is the same as for a business...you either have to cut spending or increase revenue. "
Those are the only options for a business. The government can also print money, thus eliminating debt and savings at the same time. It's been done before, to horrific effect.
Yeah, that is true...but it also is inflationary and leads to currency devaluation which leads to things like what happened to the Weimar Republic, Venezuela, Hungary, and Zimbabwe (to name a few). So, the only real options are decreasing spending or increasing revenue.
" Federal Reserve inflation management"
And a fine job it is that they're doing since 1913. No inflation at all, at all.
Dude...I have been writing on this topic for literally decades.
You made him delete, lol (or you did) :)
Whether you've been writing about it for decades or not, a $5 billion tax cut right now primarily benefitting the rich is an outrageous ignoring of the problem and will increase the debt by trillions.
Continuation of the 2017 TCJA tax cuts, which demonstrably helped the middle class. You don't get your own facts, buddy.
It's an objective fact that the highest rise in after-tax income by percentage is to the top quintiles. The top 10% get more of a break than the middle quintile.
Anyways, it's a debt balloon.
Gee, you mean the rich get richer? Wow! You get the Nobel in Economics this year!
Clue (no charge);
The rich get richer under any administration, Dem. or Rep., or even Socialist.
1. I deleted nothing. He did that himself.
2. Did you just call your host a “pussy?”
3. You follow me.
4. #2 violated a long standing Front Porch rule. You are not allowed to personally attack your host or long-standing members of the front porch. So, we have a few options here. (a) You can apologize and delete your insult. (b) You can clarify your remark to make it clear you are not in violation of one of the very few rules we have here. (c) If you do not complete (a) or (b), you will be permanently banned from commenting here.
Over to you.
ok, i take you at your word and apologize.
You are partially there. Your insult is still up.
deleted, commandante.
Tax rate cuts have ALWAYS increased tax revenues from those top bracket earners. Spending always increases faster than revenue.
No one ever answers when I ask:
Debt to whom?
The people who bought the government Treasury bonds...Japan, China, etc. It is possible to deny or default the debt, but that results in catastrophes of various types.
Sooner or later, we’re going to have to choose the form of our destructor. Catastrophe is coming, the type is yet to be determined.
Any federal bondholders ... including retirement funds. They weren't all bought by foreigners.
That is true...but sovereign debt is a little different.
educated and involved citizenry. not looking good for the home team. those anti-federalists knew a
thing or too about human nature and power.
COS -Amen! I mentioned this at the Mark Steyn club and was met with icy disdain over a "runaway convention", which isn't possible. The sooner the better - amen.
Why do you think it's impossible that a convention, once called, might go out of control and exceed its original purpose?
If it wasn't possible for politicians to exceed their mandate then we wouldn't be calling for a constitutional convention in the first place.
" out of control "
Whose control?
A Constitutional Convention would most likely be run by, well...the People in Charge. Congressmen, Senators, Lobbyists with deep pockets, Swampsters. Things are screwed up because of broken trust. Can we trust these people to do the right thing? I don't trust them. No matter how simon-pure their intentions are, they'll wake up to the reality they are turning in their license to steal and derailing the gravy train. We could end up with King Hunter the First as our monarch with Minister Schumer as Regent until Hunter I finishes rehab. Constitution Conventions scare me, Tim.
There's no such thing as a constitutional convention. I recommend gathering article v information from a trusted source.
Fair enough, Jeff. Article V allows the convening of a Convention to tinker with the Constitution. Call it an Article V Convention, state convention, amendatory convention, a federal convention, a constitutional convention or even a cabal of imperious nabobs bent on Fundamental Change. Tah-may-toe, toe-mah-tow. We did have a “Constitutional Convention” in 1787, but none since then to my knowledge. But I am with you in advocating for precision in language. Am going to call it an Article V Convention for now on. While that may not achieve clarity for some, it might steer them to the source document.
You mean it would turn out worse than our present situation? I do believe you may be more cynical than I.
I do think it could turn out worse than our present situation. On the other hand, we are certainly screwed if we do nothing. I don't like to think of myself as cynical. It's more like I have had my better nature soured by the institutions and the people in charge violating the trust we put into them. I am thinking that when you get a certain age if you haven't acquired some amount of cynicism, you just weren't paying attention.
I hesitate to explain the process; go to the convention of states website to learn more. The notion of a "runaway" convention was long ago concocted by congressmen to scare the people, and it seems to have worked.
The shouting of alarums can get you trampled to death in a crowded movie theater or save you from being eaten by a hungry tiger. Kind of a balancing act to weigh time constraints to react and investigating the trustworthiness of the source. I've been habituated into a default level of distrust when people with toothy smiles and secret handshakes convene in large groups. Having a little fright in your life, despite the annoyance, can be a survival trait.
Let the people choose the rules they live under!? Deo absit!!
The Constitution we have (less amendments) was produced by a runaway Convention which was convened to propose amendments to make the Articles of Confederation work better.
I love every bit of this except I have to respectfully disagree with you on the term limits piece. I’ve had this debate many times over the years, but having had to climb it myself, it’s really hard to overstate how steep the learning curve is for members of Congress who are responsible for having a basic working knowledge of every department and issue under the sun as well as the institution itself. Moreover the vital (and missing these days) importance of personal relationships and trust built across the aisle over time. Major reforms really only work, or certainly works best, when both sides hold hands and walk the political plank together.
On the first point regarding institutional knowledge and subject matter expertise, to use the military as one analogy, it would be like saying that the answer to procurement challenges faced by DOD could be easily solved by limiting all service chiefs and senior officers to those who had been in the military for only 8 years or less. We won’t allow any service members whatsoever to serve longer than that. This doesn’t solve the basic incentive structure problems, group think, bureaucratic inertia, etc. Not does it guarantee any particular strength of character or the quality of leadership. It merely serves to guarantee a lack of institutional knowledge and experience for which there is no substitute for time. I wish it were so easy.
All the same, this is a tremendously important message and a very well-articulated piece and I thank you for writing it. Especially the sections 15 years ago!
You say that term limits will kneecap the federal governments ability to legislate? I think that's what the majority of us want. They create too much legislation to start with, add too many riders to buy votes (adding more cost to the bill). Wash, rinse repeat. That is why we are in the predicament we are in now.
I would be a blessing from God if the US legislature passed no new bills except budget appropriations for the existing (and diminishing) government we now have.
And, approaching it from the opposite direction:
Those legislators (and likely staffers) not only get acquainted with their colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but also with a horde of lobbyists which likely do as much as anything in their corruption. While it would be unwise to completely disable the public from petitioning their representatives, one neither wants those close bonds formed by year after year after decade of friendship and campaign contributions.
In a way, congress has already moved in the direction that they would under term limits. Individual members have less control and longevity now, and bureaucracies more. The result isn't so much additional legislation as the congress can't actually oversee the government and is effectively reduced to a rubber stamp.
Just look at the navy.Sure, lobbyists play a role in this, but the concentrated power of of the industry and DoD mean that pretty much every attempt by Congress to control and limit naval programs has failed. In many cases, the navy just contemptuously ignores or subverts the obvious intent of Congress.
Why doesn't Congress pull the plug on stuff? Well, the Navy is putting a gun to their head, right? Hey Congress, we're the experts here, are you really going to defund us and make the nation unprepared for war?!?
Hmmm....
Sounds a lot like the Roman Senate in imperial times. They were technically a thing, but they weren't.
And as stated elsewhere, a CoS risks upending the existing Constitutional guarantees and creating a creating an effective dictatorship "for efficiency of governement."
As risky as it may be, one has to weigh that against arguing about whether to turn left or right, slam on the brakes or just close your eyes as you drive over the cliff.
I’m not sure that’s what I said at all. I think I said they’ll just have less idea what they’re doing. The lobbyists and the unelected staff will still be there. They will know exactly what they’re doing and as such, will have vastly more knowledge and influence than the members themselves.
Perhaps that will result in better outcomes and greater accountability. I don’t think so though. At least that was my observation and experience after a decade of serving in the institution.
You can look at recent years for proof. The vast majority of congress right now >75% is in their first or second term. That has remained the case for over a decade at this point. The turnover is much higher than it used to be. Mostly, I would argue, because good and serious people gave up and retired en masse. And because the people on both sides who buck their party and take a principled stand for problem solving are run out of town. Voters, by and large, want fighters, not problem solvers. “No” is always an easier vote to defend than “yes”. And for two generations we’ve wanted politicians who lie to us, tell us pleasant untruths and make unsustainable promises. We punish, by contrast, those who are honest and advocate for genuine reform.
Is the institution healthier these days for all this new blood having come in? Is it healthier because in average they’re serving fewer terms?
They do indeed produce less legislation these days. But has the deficit come down? Have the structural elements of the budget that lead to those deficits been reformed? Has the debate become wiser, more thoughtful, responsible or these individuals more productive at addressing these structural challenges? I would argue not. It’s been less effective at checking the overreach of presidents of both parties. They’ve given up any effort toward real reform. At this point, they can’t even get any appropriations bills done at all anymore.
Turnover itself does not guarantee character, backbone, wisdom, innovation, or leadership. That’s my observation. I wish it were so simple a fix.
Okay, you didn't say term limits would kneecap the government, but what I understood was akin to that.
The one thing that turnover does is eliminate the influence of incumbents that have been in the job for, sometime literally, half a century. It would soften the party allegiances that such longevity tends to create (or it might be a vice versa thing, but it seems effectively the same thing).
I understand the concerns with learning the ins and outs of governance. Though if these folks start in the state legislatures they should have learned something...and it's a natural progression as most states term limit their legislatures. And it's not like some don't go to DC with no relevant experience. There are doctors, ex and retired military (imagine CDR Sal on HASC!), businessmen and folks of all types with relevant experience.
As to the dangers of the permanent government, whether it be the Swamp or the MIC*, yeah that's another concern. But if you can only spend so much, at some point you have to make decisions. The decision tree is going to be different than in the past though. Now I'm sure it's 99% based on what gets you elected again, which means either money coming in (to the campaign fund) or money going out (to constituents...both individual voters and lobby groups). The new decision tree is going to look a lot more like what you promised that got you into office to start with.**
*And lets face it, that permanent government is part of the problem. It needs to be dismantled in near totality. That would solve some of your concerns, I think.
**We should also face the fact that politics is corrupting. I have little doubt that the vast majority of Congressmen and Senators start with firm convictions and the intent to do good for their constituents. But the whispers start immediately: "If you would do this for use...we'll do this for you...you'll get reelected." It sounds good, because you want to get reelected to do the good you intended to do, but eventually the devil owns you.
Limit staff budget to one or two per Congressman, 3 or 4 per Senator.
The country is never in greater danger than when Congress is in session - simply because some people think their job there is to pass legislation, regardless of its value or danger.
Exactly. Criticizing a Congresscritter because they have introduced no legislation does not seem a valid complaint to me. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
At this point in time it seems the best thing they could do is to just say NO to everything.
I am in favor of the idea that Congress should have to cancel a law for every new law they pass, although a 2:1 ratio would probably be better.
not just a line, but "lines of law"
We could improve the Republic immensely with two simple rules:
1. All legislature must be read fully on the floor prior to a vote, with a quorum present (and if you didn't hear it, you don't vote)
2. Outlaw air conditioning in DC
No man's life, liberty, or property is safe when the legislature is in session - Some old, dead white guy
Dead, but not stupid. Gideon John Tucker (February 10, 1826 – July 1899): "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session."
Rather than term limits, just create a maximum age in which mandatory retirement occurs. We send everyone packing in the US Military by age 70, (maybe one or two very rare exceptions) and most companies send everyone home around age 65 mandatory or voluntary. Create a policy that says you’re done running and serving at age 72, Or name the number, but once you cross the threshold you’re done. We need new blood. We may get it whether we like it or not. That’s how revolutions work. Some less violent than others. But usually there are a lot of youthful advocates and a couple of timers that figure it out and all Hell breaks loose. We will see.
I like my plan. ALL legislation automatically sunsets 6 months after the new Congress is sworn in, unless it it reaffirmed by majority vote in each new Congress (every two years). In order for a vote to occur, the Legislation must be read, in full, including all references to documents or prior legislation, on the House floor with a quorum present. NO "we approve all the previous crap" votes.
If a vote does not occur for ANY active legislation within that six months, and subsequently be approved by the Senate (again having been read fully on the Senate floor), it expires, and is no longer in effect.
Then the President gets to read it and sign it. or it is no longer in effect.
No exceptions. If anything is that important, get to reading out loud. And all active legislation (meaning anything in effect, not in discussion) of them to be posted online fully, all the time
What makes you think the Congress critters who have been around for awhile have a working knowledge of the government? They are a good part of the problem; they have a great knowledge of politics and process but not so great a knowledge of anything else.
A decade of direct, daily observation.
Fair enough. But the knuckleheads from NJ that tried to break into the ICE detention center didn't seem to understand how Congressional oversight actually works. And one of them seems to have been in office decades.
There are indeed plenty of idiots who manage to stay a long time. Just as there are senior military officers who shouldn’t have ever achieved their rank. My basic point remains the same - to think that the military would be a better fighting force with very limited experience at the top would strain logic. It’s helpful to have people around who remember the last war, the mistakes made, the lessons learned.
And to your earlier point, we can drop a subject matter expertise straight into a committee and they’ll do great work from (almost) day 1. But a former sailor will also need to be competent enough on bank regulation, the tax code, agriculture policy, air traffic control, energy policy, homeland security, trade agreements, etc etc etc. All of which are complicated, high stakes, expensive issues, full of nuance and detail, and all of which affect millions of lives and livelihoods. A person could spend an entire career working on one narrow piece of any one of those issues and still be learning. So to drop a person straight into the middle of that and ask them to start making thoughtful, informed decisions within weeks simply isn’t possible. It takes time to get spun up.
I had the fortunate experience of getting to work for a veteran lawmaker as my first boss. One who had served a long time in the state legislature and then in congress for a number of years before I showed up. It was a masterclass. She was a wealth of knowledge, experience, relationships, and crucially, an understanding of how to move the ball across the goal line to get things done. When she retired, I stayed on with her successor. Career law enforcement officer who’d become sheriff. Zero legislative experience, but an absolutely rock solid human being. Smart, dedicated, hard working, and patriotic to his core. All three of his sons were serving in the Army. Two West Point graduates. I couldn’t have hoped for a better role model - not as a man or as a leader and to this day have not met anybody more dedicated to this country and what it stands for. Crucially, in my opinion, he was there for all the right reasons. Not because he was particularly enamored with it, but because he’d been asked to run. It wasn’t his idea or his ambition. He ran. He won. And there he was in Washington a couple months later.
But it is indeed a steep learning curve. One that takes years to climb. By the time he retired six years later, he had a really good handle on what was going on across the government and how Congress worked. Had developed relationships. Built a reputation as being a man of his word. Had developed sub-subject matter expertise within his committee. Was very early in advocating for research into directed energy weapons, for instance, recognizing how important that was going to be with electronic warfare coming fast. He had to push hard for years to get HASC to take it more seriously. Then, just as he was getting really good at his job, he retired and the institution (and the American people) lost him as an asset in Washington. Then they had to set about starting all over with a new rookie.
Is Congress better off because he only served six years? Or might the country have been better served if he’d stayed another six or another twenty for that matter?
The answer for me, like any other discipline, is get the best people you can for the job, train them to the best of your ability, and then trust them to get the job done. Our failure, in my opinion, is in not getting that first part right. We don’t attract the best people to run for Congress. So it’s over before it starts. Can’t fix stupid. Can’t fix greedy.
In this way, just cycling more bad people through there more quickly won’t solve the problem. I try to remain open-minded to any suggestions that might make the institution better. Lord knows we need ‘em. But I’m afraid I just don’t see term limits as the key. It’s a really really hard job to learn. Just like most of the jobs out there that really matter.
Well, my 60+ years of observing the results of all that knowledge lead me to think otherwise. And, even if they do have a good working knowledge of *government*, their knowledge of the real world and the effects of government on that real world are sadly lacking. Not to mention the intentional and willful ignorance and dogmatism that seems to be prevalent in our governing class, Dem. or Rep.
I shall cite only one example. Some years ago our knowledgeable Congress placed a luxury tax of 10%(?) on yachts. They were warned that this would harm boat builders large and small on both coasts. It did. (Ask John Kerry why he bought his yacht abroad and, incidentally, why he kept it in Rhode Island instead of Mass.) A few years later, of course, the tax was dropped, but only after a few US boat builders went broke.
I just looked that up this morning due to an argument on X. The 1990 tax bill had an excise tax of 30% on boats over $100k, cars over $30k, and furs over $10k. The other guy blamed it on Reagan ruining his dad's boat business, but it was GHWB who signed it. Smack his damned lips!
" it’s really hard to overstate how steep the learning curve is for members of Congress who are responsible for having a basic working knowledge of every department and issue under the sun as well as the institution itself."
I disagree with the premise that they should. Government is far true intrusive in all aspects of our erstwhile Republic. It should not be doing ANYTHING that an intelligent, professional citizen does not already understand.
I concluded this option earlier this year. Congress is hopelessly bound up controlled by fools. It does not have the ability to fix this. Nor would they even try. I was no fan of the Convention of States but things have gone south too far. Its worth the risk at this point. Trumps not going to save us. 4 States away.
The Convention of States will not save us.
There are no limitations on a COS.
Certainly, getting a BBA & Term Limits in one fell swoop would tremendous, but it would not stop there.
There is no way a new Constitution, & make no mistake, a COS would result in an entirely new Constitution, will respect liberty and the individual as much as the Constitution does.
I do not trust whoever the delegates would be to a COS to not turn the USA into an entirely different country, one that doesn't believe that we, the people, are endowed by our Creator, with certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, property, & the pursuit of happiness not least among them.
I agree with your assessment of the problem, but not your proposed solution.
The constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the conduct of a convention for proposing amendments, other than 1) the Congress shall "call a convention" and 2) mode of ratification (state legislatures or state conventions).
There is no parliamentary authority mandated in the Constitution. Let's assume Roberts Rules . So the call to convention. That could be all over the map. How many delegates per state? How are delegates chosen? How are delegates credentialed? Who will draft the proposed special rules for the convention? A convention is its own final authority except when the Constitution mandates otherwise, which again it doesn't. So any final seating of delegates and adoption of special rules is up to the convention itself. It seems clear the final product has to be "amendments", but I don't see any way to prevent "gut and replace" amendments.
On mode of ratification it seems unlikely that Congress would ever mandate the mode of state conventions, but do we know that?
At the end of the day if you can convince 3/4ths of the states to do away with the Constitution, then I guess you can.
You know the Bill of Rights would be gutted. Truly free speech and freedom of assembly are not popular as we have recently seen. Nor are due process and freedom from warrantless seizures and searchess.
You seriously think 38 states or more would ratify an amendment gutting the Bill of Rights?
You live in a country with the Patriot Act etc and you doubt it? There would be several subtly-tailored “reasonable” amendments limiting each one of the Bill of Rights.
For example, to take a current popular misconception, to take away free speech and due process from non-citizens.
No civil jury trials because “tort reform.”
Limiting “right to bear.”
Writing out NYT v Sullivan from the 1st.
Change 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments because "criminals are getting away with it on technicalities."
The propaganda supporting them would be astounding.
I think 500+ of the 535 Congress critters and 95% of their staff as well would unplug any citizen's life support to charge a spare cellphone headset.
Sadly, there is a good chance many people at a CoS would be of the same ilk.
I'm astonished how well the anti-COS propaganda worked. It had to have been cooked up by some infernal government lobbyist group. None of those statements are even remotely associated with how the COS actually works.
This exactly! Why is the concept so hard to understand? Congress has nothing to do with convention of state amendment proposals. Congress does not approve amendments. I have spoken with state legislators that don’t understand this. Ignorance is rampant and that’s the biggest issue of all.
Since we haven't had a COS, we don't know how it actually works.
That's the point. Just pointing to a website and saying "this is how we plan for it to work" is like pointing to the plans for the LCS and saying that's how it will actually work. We don't know.
After 2/3 of the states approve, congress and staff are physically removed from capitol. From each state, two individuals go to DC, one representative and one legislature. The new amendments approved by the 2/3 of states are voted on by all 50 states (100 people). Each amendment requires 3/4 of all states to approve. Effective immediately without any branch of government interfering. No changed amendments, new suggestions, runaway craziness allowed.
The COS can propose any amendments at all. Sky's the limit. But there is a huge restraint.
Ratification.
No matter what amendments a COS proposes, they must still go to the 50 states to be ratified. Good luck getting 38 states to approve a nutty amendment making Jon Stewart king for life, or banning guns and pointy sticks, or imposing the death penalty for misgendering a furry.
That's the check on a so-called "runaway convention."
Estes is right up there, and a further check and also one of the reasons it hasn't happened yet is because so many of the proposals are different, and are effectively different calls for different conventions that don't have the required number of states. The convention is limited to the specific topics in its call unless it specifically states its also open to further changes. While a balanced budget and term limits are not enough by themselves we should still do them, but what is really needed is a series of conventions with each one that gains enough states to proceed discussing a separate proposal on its own.
While I appreciate your alarm, this claim is not true: "Eventually, no one will want to buy our debt, then we have to offer higher and higher interest rates to attract buyers." Those who buy our debt do so because in our country property rights are secure, contracts are enforced and our judiciary who look after such things is not corrupt. As long as that remains the case, foreigners will continue to buy our debt.
Partially, but foreigners also buy our debt because of trade imbalances. All that stuff we import is sold for dollars. So if you own a T-shirt factory in Vietnam or a Nike slave plantation... err factory in China, you get a bunch of dollars. If you don't want to spend it all, buying debt makes a lot of sense.
This is an accounting identity, actually. Guaranteed true.
The implication is that, rather than trade wars or tariffs, there is a very straightforward and obvious ways to reduce the trade deficit; reduce the government deficit. Causation can run either way, but the more obvious way is that, if we aren't issuing so much debt, the terms of trade literally have to improve.
We just need to do what the Brits did and get China hooked on opium again.
Judiciary is not corrupt? Based on events in recent history that is at the very least highly suspect at this point.
Not recent.
In a famous letter written Dec. 25, 1820, Thomas Jefferson complained that “the Judiciary of the U.S. is the subtle corps of sappers & miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.”
Jefferson and FDR threatened to ignore a decision if the Court ruled against them. Jackson and Lincoln actually did.
Well just make the banks hold treasuries. Tons of them, trillions. Scott Bessent and others are already talking about this.
That sounds like a "solution" to allowing the federal government to still spend us into oblivion.
Understand that savers, whether they are foreign or domestic being unwilling to voluntarily buy bonds would be a GOOD thing because it would force the government to stop spending recklessly.
If we were to overtly force banks to hold treasuries (something we alarmingly already have to encourage more than we should), that would actually remove an impediment to deficit spending. And break down another free market principle.
What we'd be doing is saying that the government can borrow all they want and private companies would be forced by law to buy the debt. That would lead to more debt, runaway inflation, and a host of other bad things.
We want the opposite of that.
Not disagreeing. My comment was more tongue in cheek based on what I’m already seeing than anything I actually want to see happen.
"Those who buy our debt do so because in our country property rights are secure, contracts are enforced and our judiciary who look after such things is not corrupt."
Delaware judiciary enters the room ...
They have to, privilege of being the reserve currency. Which is why Trump went nuts on BRICS and their attempt to create another reserve currency.
" in our country property rights are secure"
Susette Kelo might disagree.
Then there is "Civil Asset Forfeiture".
The problem is that the Federal Governments problems are mirrored in many of the 50 states. Look at the debt problems in CA, IL, NJ, and others. No, I don’t think the States can save us.
If you add in unfunded pension debt and unfunded OPEB, it is pretty much all of them that have dug themselves into a hole.
It is truly terrifying to imagine the scale of the fiscal problem across the Federal and State Governments. I don’t see how it ends in anything but disaster.
The fault is with the American people. They elect and re-elect the same candidates. No one wants to sacrifice, don't cut my slice of the pie. Be it Social Security, defense, Medicare, never cut any portion of these sacred cows! Of course when it comes time to raise money, you can raise taxes on any group except mine. Just the rambling thoughts of an old hermit. (Of course the Air Force needs the F-47, F-35, F-22, F-15EX, B-21, B-2, B-1, B-52. The Navy can't build a FFG on time and within budget and let's not mention the Ford Class, Colombia, or my two favorite, the Zumwalt and the LCS. So please, can the DOD get their act together before we conven a convention to change the Constitution. Just the opinion of a retired chief)
And yet, the same illiterate, innumerate, incompetent, and selfish group known as "the American people" by and large manage to elect individuals to their state, county, parish, township, school board, fire protection districts, road commissions, and city governments who are operating without an exponentially increasing debt. Sure! there are individual examples with horrible finances but across the country the vast majority are not in bad shape. It is almost like money from D.C. is considered magic money but that taken as local taxes are directly felt and paid attention to. Distance may make the heart grow fonder but apparently it makes the wallet grow stupid.
See my comment about pensions and OPEB.
Well said. It seems as if the Federal Government is the "tooth fairy!" Just a never ending pot of money.
Social Security is not funded by Congress, it’s not subject to budget consideration. It is funded by payroll deductions from workers and contributions by their employers. Not everyone making mandatory contributions will be necessarily be paid any benefits. You have to qualify, and once receiving them, remain eligible to continue.
It is an INSURANCE PROGRAM.
A cursory examination of public unions and elected Progressives with their "free everything" approach to government leads back to the Tytler Cycle.
https://realinvestmentadvice.com/pdf_converter/htmltopdf.php?Tboto=437637&PdfTitle=tytler-cycle-why-more-government-help-leads-to-less
Without a sea change within the electorate, their representatives (a vote for me is a vote for free stuff.) and our mandarin class controlling the levers of power, we're essentially done until the Tytler Cycle starts anew.
Public sector unions should not be a thing.
My simplistic look at this -
1) VA - Take a hard look at disability payments. There are a lot of ways to get a rating - reform that system so that "service connected" payments go to those who truly have a need for additional help.
2) Dual Medicare and Medicaid eligibility -
3) Social Security - Require SSA taxes on total income - not capped @ $176,000 -- simplify the system .. raise the age for full benefits
4) 10% budget cuts across the board
If you're making $176K, you should not be getting Social Security payments.
Bullshit.
I paid into it - forced to, as were my employers - so that money is mine. Period. Otherwise, it is outright theft by the federal government.
Now, if you want to start some kind of phase out, with social security deductions reducing (as well as benefits-payable at SS retirement age), beginning at some point prior to SS-retirement age, going to zero for both for 18-yr olds and younger, then we might have a plan.
😂 I suggest you familiarize yourself with Flemming v. Nestor, 363 US 603 (1960).
I leave it to you to do that. 😂
I did, SCOTUS declared it an entitlement, which Congress can reduce or eliminate.
So essentially SS and Medicare taxes are just taxes. The go into the general fund, not some mythical "lockbox." Congress can do with them as they please.
That said, it's understandable that everyone who has paid in wants their money back as that was what they were told they were taking it for. And for many people, especially with the current high personal deduction on income tax, SS and Medicare is more that what people pay in income tax.
Yes, the same SCOTUS that did Dred Scott, Wickard, Korematsu, Kelo and NFIB. Among other atrocities. Your granting of credibility is touching.
Also, "Now, if you want to start some kind of phase out, with social security deductions reducing" is not how a pyramid scheme works.
I applaud the sentiment, but it's not our money anymore. They took it by force, stuffed it into a ponzi scheme, and those of us in our 50s are going to be among the first standing without chairs.
Sadly, that’s the reality. And BOTH Parties are to blame…the DC Swamp UniParty
Concur completely. I've been describing it as the R and D Conferences of the All Government League. No matter which Conference "wins" any issue in the show, the League ALWAYS wins more power and influence.
Social Security was a Ponzi Scheme from day 1. The money you paid in is not yours; it was used to pay previous retirees. Yeah, I'm collecting SSA; doing my bit to hasten the collapse.
I agree that the debt is the greatest threat to the republic. However, I am not clear how we can mount a proper assault with the constant lying on a daily basis from the narcissistic, sociopathic pretend "leaders". We are governed by political whores that will sell their souls for personal power and greed. Until the G stops undermining the people we are screwed. Just my humble opinion.
I'm not sure you understand how bad it really is.
Of course the MMT theorists have an answer for all that so you are going to have to, at some point, get an agreement on the theory of money. I don't necessarily buy into MMT, but I will say that I have been hearing my whole life that federal spending, issue of currency and debt instruments, will cause the sky to fall soon. At this point I don't think people view that as credible.
Haven't heard much from the MMT people lately.
The answer is the same as for a business...you either have to cut spending or increase revenue. It is possible, at this point, to only hold the line on spending (hopefully we can change that in future given we can extricate ourselves). Our answer is revenue and revenue comes from only a few sources - tariffs or taxes on goods and services or income taxes. However, the key is EXPANSION of the economy. If we find a way to grow the economy, to increase revenues without increasing RATES, then we have a chance to increase our revenue (as long as we don't turn around and spend it).
The answer is to go all in on new sources of energy to change the cost equation for companies so it is really, really cheap to operate here vs elsewhere and they can expand (size, products, etc.). We can do this by streamlining the requirement for building SMNRs and letting them grow as a market and by increasing our oil production and keeping it HERE - lowering our gas prices. The boost with lower energy costs, especially re on site power for things like data centers, shipyards, new steel mills, etc., would spur a leap forward in our economy. As the economy grows, tax revenues increase. If we hold spending below the revenue increase we can eke our way out of this over time.
Not suddenly, but gradually.
It also means going back to basics on government - "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." That means spending what is necessary to get the "stand off" services (Navy and Air Force) back into defensive shape to guard CONUS and OCUNUS interests in the only area DEFINED (not subjective) in the preamble - providing for the common defense.
Easier said than done. Our developed system of government, built over what was devised in the Constitution, continually mitigates against such reform. The beast, and its' children, want to be fed and they eat money - or at least control its' distribution for political power.
Very true. My only quibble is with "The answer is the same as for a business...you either have to cut spending or increase revenue. "
Those are the only options for a business. The government can also print money, thus eliminating debt and savings at the same time. It's been done before, to horrific effect.
Yeah, that is true...but it also is inflationary and leads to currency devaluation which leads to things like what happened to the Weimar Republic, Venezuela, Hungary, and Zimbabwe (to name a few). So, the only real options are decreasing spending or increasing revenue.
Agree; I don't trust our government to not choose a terrible option