The chairmen of President Obama’s debt-reduction commission have been unable to win support from any of the panel’s elected officials for their proposed spending cuts and tax increases, underscoring the reluctance of both parties to risk short-term political backlash in pursuit of the nation’s long-term fiscal health.
The chairmen of the commission ”” former Senator Alan K. Simpson, a Republican, and Erskine B. Bowles, a Democrat and former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton ”” delayed for two days, until Friday, a final vote by its 18 members.
They said the delay was to provide more time to look at the final package, but it also gave them further opportunity to woo some of the 12 members of Congress on the commission, six from each party, whose support will be critical if the plan is to be taken seriously as a blueprint for eventual legislation.
I am a federal employee, a home owner, married, and the father of three. I would be in favor of eliminating ALL tax deductions, credits, and exemptions provided ALL income is taxed, starting with the first dollar earned and it is taxed at the same rate; and provided that federal agencies and programs not authorized by the US Constitution (such as the Department of Education and the National Endowment for the Arts) are abolished, and ALL foreign aid is cut off.
The power to levy taxes is for the purpose of generating necessary revenue to pay for legitimate government functions, as outlined in the US Constitution. Transferring wealth, creating priviledged classes of tax exempt people, and government manipulation of the behavior of citizens are NOT legitimate expressions of that power and have NO place in our constitutional republic. They are abuses of trust and power and should be stopped!
Further, we should withdraw our military from all nations that we are not at war with, and reduce the size of the standing Army to what is necessary to maintain our nuclear deterrence force and for the DEFENSE of our national borders and soveriegn territory.
Unemployment “insurance” should be privatized and the benefits should be limited to the amount an individual payed into the system and the actuarially sound benefits provided by the insurer. Labor types that experience more significant or frequent loss of employment would pay proportionately higher premiums.
NAFTA and the GATT should be repealed. Coal production and use should no longer be impeded. Snail Darters should no longer be able to stop the building of hydro electric dams without compensation for loss being provided by those that defend the Snail Darters. The same holds true of Spotted Owls. Unless those thwarting the legal use of property compensate the owners for their loss of use of their property, they should not be able to stop the lawful use of that property.
Property taxes should only apply to actual values as demonstrated by the most recent transaction. They should not be based on unrealized potential captial gains. Therefore, the tax on a home would be a percentage of the last sale price of that home when ownership changed hands.
Dollars should be minted in one ounce silver increments at federal mints, not printed pomisary notes based on confidence issued by private banks. Dollar promisary notes printed by the federal mint should be redeemable from the government in actual silver upon demand.
Finally, there needs to be a balanced budget amendment that prohibits deficit spending except in times of declared war.
Gosh, imagine if we actually followed the US Constitution, what a happier world it would be!
“Gosh, imagine if we actually followed the US Constitution, what a happier world it would be!”
I have an honest question, simply for discussion. In the world you’ve so enthusiastically described, would there have been a mechanism for causing the lead to be removed from the air we breathe, or the glop from all our waterways? The snail darter’s gone, of course, but what else is lost?
First, the Snail Darter was successfully transplanted to the Hiwassee River and now also lives there. Second, the Tellico Dam was built anyway, and guess what? The Snail Darters are still alive and well on the Little Tennessee River to this very day. So, your comment, “…snail darter’s gone, of course…” is without merit.
Second, people [b]with standing[/b] can bring class action lawsuits against those that cause them harm. Of course, they will have to demonstrate in a court of law that they are actually being harmed, but if successful, they could cause those putting lead into the air and “glop” into the waterways to pay for damages and punative awards and they could be restrained from further harmful acts. Further, if actual bodily harm occurs, criminal proceedings could be brought against those responsible for assault. Of course, the standard for evidence is a bit higher in criminal law, but real malicious activity could be prosecuted and those hurting others by their negligence or deliberate acts could be brought to justice.
What do you think? Could we give the Constitution a try?
Sorry for the confusion. I meant my comment to be read this way, “In the world you’ve so enthusiastically described …. The snail darter’s gone, of course….” I know in reality we saved the snail darter, which God created for the sport of it, and I’m just as glad.
And, secondly, everybody has standing to get the lead out of the air (and my children’s blood and brains) and, no, I don’t consider waiting until my children have suffered the effects of lead poisoning and then suing the company to be adequate or civilized. My sense is this kind of thinking is why God invented prophets.
Just to be clear, though, maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Can you imagine a non-governmental effort based purely in legal actions by individuals and classes that would have cleaned up the air as relatively quickly as it was in fact cleaned up? Is delay on things like this a virtually inevitable effect of pure constitutionalism?
A court injunction could stop lead emmissions immediately. Attorneys General could bring suit, so it isn’t just dependent on individuals or classes. The point is, lead is a known poison and litigation can effectively deal with it. Also, actual harm is not needed for a lawsuit to proceed. Attempted bodily harm or conspiracy to commit bodily harm is actionable.
We do not need an EPA to do that. I don’t think there would be any more delay than there is when regulations are written and placed in the Federal Register for comment, etc.
Court fees are a “pay-go” system. It would save billions that are currently wasted on the bureaucracy.
———-
On the Snail Darter…we did not “save” the Snail Darter. The dam was built ANYWAY. There was a two year delay (and millions of dollars were wasted) and then a waiver was granted and the dam was built. Snail Darters still live where they have always lived and the dam did nothing to hurt them. In fact, the Snail Darter was taken off of the endangered species list SINCE the dam was built.
I repeat, we did not “save” the Snail Darter. All we did was waste millions of dollars and delay jobs for local people there for 2 years. How would you like to wait 2 years to get your job because someone from out of state brought a baseless lawsuit against your employer?
By the way, I wonder if any studies have been done to explore if damage was caused to the Hiwassee River ecosystem by the “well-intentioned” environmentalists. I know that it is a rather large issue to introduce foreign fish species into new habitats right now.
Although I appreciate S&TN;’s honesty, I’m glad that the US government decided to expand the first part of the century. Through government investment, we’ve had a number of improvements for most of our citizenry. Social security has kept old people out of poverty; collective bargaining gave many people health insurance and weekends to spend with their kids. The GI bill was a huge government giveaway to people that allowed them to go to schools. States invested heavily in education. It gave us the framework to reach the moon.
As a country gets rich, it naturally expects more from its public institutions. I’m sure that some long for living the way people did 200 years ago, when government was small. But as problems became bigger, they required larger solutions. And even businesses realized that they benefited from shared sacrifice.
The amount spent on the NEA, Dept of Education and even on foreign missions is… tiny. We cut those, and we infer we don’t value any of them (which, of course, is a stereotype of plenty of Americans as persons who don’t appreciate art, education or anything foreign). We don’t know what the founders thought, but I wonder if they would have been so small-minded that they would not have seen some merit in public involvement. They were against being taxed without representation – not against taxation.
I am amused, of course, at the idea that the constitution is perfect…. But it needs another amendment. I tend to see that the constitution is living, with different traditions within, deliberately held in tension. Otherwise, perhaps we’d still have slaves.
I’m amused that some folks don’t seem to realize that the constitution is designed to be malleable through the process of amendment. They constantly want the government to do things it has no lawful business doing, but they won’t do the hard work of trying to amend the constitution. They just ignore it and work around it. Now we are bankrupt and in the process of empire building and world policing.
Isn’t it odd that some will mock people that just want us to follow the law of the land. They seem to prefer the rule of men rather than the rule of law.
The idea of a “living” Constitution simply mean that the words written on it don’t mean anything. What does the Constitution mean then? What ever the High Priests of interpretation (Federal Courts) say it means regardless of what it actually says. 8 is absolutely right. The Constitution is regularly ignored by all branches of the Federal Government in its endless quest for power and control over our lives. The US Constitution is no more a restraint on the Federal Government that Britain’s “unwritten constitution” is a restraint on acts of Parliament.
And actually slavery was ended by Constitutional amendment. The 13th amendment in fact since prior to that slavery was protected by the Constitution.
RE: “Social security has kept old people out of poverty . . . ”
No — actually social security stole people’s money and has kept old people *in* poverty. Evil.
RE: ” . . . collective bargaining gave many people health insurance and weekends to spend with their kids.”
Which need have nothing to do whatsoever with the State interfering so that’s a moot point.
RE: “The GI bill was a huge government giveaway to people that allowed them to go to schools.”
No — the GI bill was a part of remuneration for services rendered. I’m fine with that remuneration being renegotiated too.
RE: “As a country gets rich, it naturally expects more from its public institutions.”
Well, no, it doesn’t.
RE: “But as problems became bigger, they required larger solutions.”
And those larger solutions would have far better come not from the State’s thievery and violations of the Constitution.
RE: “We cut those, and we infer we don’t value any of them . . . ”
Nah — we infer that we don’t value the NEA — which as we all recognize has nothing whatsoever to do with the value we put on education since the NEA only hinders education.
RE: “They were against being taxed without representation – not against taxation.”
Right — and they were for the Constitution.
RE: “But it needs another amendment.”
Good idea — go for it.
RE: “I tend to see that the constitution is living, with different traditions within, deliberately held in tension.”
Hah hah — yes, deconstructionists tend to have that attitude towards words, that’s for sure.
#11 Re: “No—actually social security stole people’s money and has kept old people *in* poverty. Evil.”
An interesting counter assertion. Social security was a deal: pay now, and you’ll have income for retirement. It’s like an IRA, but without investment bankers.
“Which need have nothing to do whatsoever with the State interfering so that’s a moot point.”
clearly not very well informed in the government creating the National Labor Relations Board.
“The GI bill was a part of remuneration for services rendered. I’m fine with that remuneration being renegotiated too.”
It was still a government program, that required the wealthy to pay higher taxes to support those making sacrifices for the country.
“Well, no, it doesn’t.”
Granted, I know things are going swimmingly in South Carolina, but some of us in richer states do want strong public schools, better roads, and organized health care. The richer states in the US tend to have a less negative view toward the government. In fact, we rich states tend to subsidize the poorer, conservative, red states.
RE: “And those larger solutions would have far better come not from the State’s thievery and violations of the Constitution.”
Living in a Republic must be difficult.
Re “the NEA only hinders education.”
Ah yes. I stand corrected. They’re responsible for the incompetence of local school boards, principals and teachers. I apologize for not seeing that before.
RE: “Right—and they were for the Constitution.”
You might want to check the timeline on the slogan about taxation and the ratification of the constitution. I’m for the constitution, myself.
RE: “deconstructionists tend to have that attitude towards words, that’s for sure.”
I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate you understand that word, “deconstructionist,” Sarah, or that you’ve actually read a “deconstructionist.” It’s a big word.
My personal perspective about the constitution is more along the lines of [url=http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/]Justice Souter[/url], who perhaps – in your world – is a “deconstructionist.” (Although the people who actually call themselves [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_legal_studies]”critical legal scholars”[/url] would find such a view ignorant or amusing)
Which would, ironically, be a “deconstructionist” attitude – in so far as “deconstructionists” see ideology as always prior to fact, and a suspicion towards descriptive claims of objectivity.
RE: “Social security was a deal . . . ”
No — for as we all know, it was a lie.
RE: “clearly not very well informed in the government creating the National Labor Relations Board. . . . ”
Nah — “collective bargaining” doesn’t need a “National Labor Relations Board.”
RE: “some of us in richer states do want strong public schools, better roads, and organized health care. The richer states in the US tend to have a less negative view toward the government.”
Well no — collectivists want to give money to the State and pretend like that will get people “strong public schools” and other goodies — heh.
But *collectivists* — not those merely in “richer states” — do tend to have a “less negative view” towards the State, that’s true.
RE: “In fact, we rich states tend to subsidize the poorer, conservative, red states.”
Those who value the Constitution would be thrilled — no matter whether we are in a poorer or richer state — to cease receiving Federal money in exchange for its butting out of our lives and actually condescending to follow the Constitution.
RE: “Living in a Republic must be difficult.”
Nah — just living with people who lie about their intentions of honoring the Constitution — under oath — and then get to be our Representatives and Senators. Thankfully, this last election has been *a good start* at weeding a few of those out.
RE: “I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate you understand that word, “deconstructionist,†Sarah, or that you’ve actually read a “deconstructionist.â€
Tee hee — you’re the one who claimed repeatedly a couple of years ago that you didn’t know what deconstructionism means, — guess you got tired of that line.
[i] Ad hominem portions deleted by elf. [/i]