Hoffman’s in the lead in NY23, ahead by four or five points. Palin, Pawlenty and DeMint have now endorsed him.
Anyway, let me float an idea? I’ve talked about and presented a balanced budget amendment that would limit spending to 10% of GDP, which would be $1.4 trillion. Under that budget, I believe you might be able to fit all current military, intelligence and law enforcement expenditures, without cutting any fat whatsoever. Needless to say, if you were to cut budgetary fat, you would not adversely effect capabilities in any one of those areas and would still have (probably) hundreds of billions left over to throw at whatever you wanted to.
I’m not a fan of the principle. Ronald Reagan taught me budget deficits are not necessarily bad things. I like the idea of Congress having to balance its checkbook, but going into debt isn’t bad, if you’re borrowing for something worthwhile.
I have three College degrees and completely funded two with loans. I borrowed money to pay for 100% of the tuition in both cases. One out of necessity, the other because I could. In both instances my annual income upon graduation was greater than the entire amount of the money borrowed. Did I deficit spend? In the first case absolutely. I was literally homeless and the amount I borrowed far exceeded my net worth. But, upon graduation I was earning more than enough to pay off the loan, and purchase other things. Was I right to borrow the money? It is, as the kids say, “a no-brainer.”
Let’s say you have two kids from poor families. They both go to State Universities and borrow $50k over the course of 4 years to fund their tuition, room, board, books and beer. Student A majors in Electrical Engineering and gets a job making $70k/year upon graduation. Student B majors in History and gets a job at Target making $6/hour/20 hours a week (Student B is real. I know him.) If Student B hadn’t gone to University he could have the same job. Student B was wrong to deficit spend, Student A was right.
Let’s take two Presidents. President A runs up deficits funding weapons programs that cause his adversary to collapse. The “peace dividend” reduces military spending in ensuing years and the money injected into the defense industry boosts tax revenues and results in new innovations improving efficiency. President B runs up deficits funding cash for clunkers and socialized medicine. This decreases productivity and causes a reduction in tax revenues. President B is like the History major working at Target.
Good point, but the only reason President A ran up deficits is that he was still saddled with social programs accumulated under LBJ and Carter, as well as a Congress that could have its arm twisted only so far. Moreover, given enough time, Congress is almost always going to revert to the position of Student or President B. The sum of it is this: fiscal discipline should not be dependent on election cycles.
But David, Presidents A and B both have to live in the real world. What President doesn’t believe he or she has been saddled with obligations from prior administrations and Congress’? It is ever so.
What if Bush II and Congress ran out of funds in year 2 of the Iraq War? What if Reagan and Congress ran out of funds a year before the wall fell? Borrowing isn’t bad if one borrows for the right reasons. Some of the best progress this nation has made has come on the back of deficit spending. It’s like my example with borrowing for College. If you borrow money for reasons that result in increased tax receipts in the future that outweigh the deficit you done good!
My wife and I borrowed a hell of a lot of money, money we didn’t have, to buy our home. Even in this crappy market it’s appreciated and we have tons of equity. Some day we’ll sell it for much more than we paid for it and invest the windfall. Deficit spending is not always bad and sometimes governments need to do it for good reasons.
You can put in exceptions and triggers for necessary situations. In fact, several versions of the BBAs that were floating around in the 90s had such provisions in place.
David I saw that from Club for Growth’s story and it is fabulous. I am so pumped. What we need to do is this: Champion the conservative in the districts that run center right and then help them win the primarys. If they get screwed over by the RHINO via the national party then we push in the General election. Hoffman may make the a-holes in DC shut up about moderating the partys stance. Maybe Joe Scarborough and Peggy Noonan will realize, the party belongs to US not them.
I agree that it would be very, very cool if Hoffman wins. The only thing he has going for him is he’s not a douche. The other two douches running have the party affiliations, the money, the endorsements… Hoffman has little charisma, and even less money, but he seems sincere and he doesn’t appear to be a politician. If he wins there is absolutely no way anyone can confuse his victory as anything but a referendum against douchebag politicians.
It’s a tough idea to sell, because it’s esoteric and not too sexy, but the real answer to tying Congress’ hands and decreasing spending is to repeal the 16th Amendment and do away with the income tax. It is in complete opposition with what the founders intended and it allows the Congress to tax and spend in secrecy. Congress is supposed to levy taxes in daylight, and fund their initiatives off of those taxes. If they want to do something stupid, and need to raise money, then they have to come after an industry. And when they do that we see the direct effects. When the bastards get out of control we see it in the price of our tea and we tell them to stop.
Ideally, I would agree tax reform should be the first goal, but trying to reform the tax code is fraught with peril because voters tend to misunderstand how taxation works. They understand tax cuts well enough, but try to explain something like a national sales tax and the usual response is “I don’t want to pay sales tax on top of everything else,” when you just explained to them that it would replace other forms of taxation. This then opens the opportunity for the other side to mis-characterize efforts at tax reform. It’s easy to see why a flat-rate income tax has the widest support; it’s the easiest to understand.
If you put a choke-hold on spending, you reduce the need and justification for higher taxes. It becomes easier to reduce them and, more importantly, to reform the tax system.
I agree that tax reform is very difficult, maybe impossible for the reasons you mention. I do not agree that a choke hold can, or should, be put on spending. Look at the current Administration and Congress. If you limit the size of the pie they would simply redistribute the pie to further damage the institutions you prefer; military, and, umm, military, in order to fund the institutions they hold dear; giving free stuff to people. Then, every 4 or 8 years we could be subject to huge shifts in government funding. How do you run a military like that?
1. You have plans for transition, preferably laid down before the amendment.
2. A successful balanced budget amendment builds a political cachet to pass other amendments that reinforce limits of what the fed gov’t can spend money on.
Tea Party Nation is having a big to-do in Nashville on Feb 5 and 6th and they are listing Sarah Palin as one of the keynote speakers with more to come. I have to figure Rudy will be here (he loves Nashville) but who knows who else they have up their sleeve. If anyone would be interested in trotting over to “the ville” (that’s what the cool kids call it) let me know and I will post the details here as I get them. Scott it wouldn’t be that long of a drive for you.
I’ve been watching a FB drama unwind most of the day. Two women from my church fighting. Full grown women with children. Of course I’m watching this. What did I do before FB?
That’s awesome — I mean sad Tracy. Very sad. Don’t they know they’re supposed to fight in the parking lot after church — old school? And then gossip about it — I mean make a prayer request?
That was one of the funniest parts, one of the updates was a prayer request for her “persecution” on FB, which of course made everyone curious.
I wonder if some of the fights I have seen lately between some of the church ladies would have happened if not for the internet. It’s connecting people who would have probably never met otherwise and in ways that encourage them to “share” themselves without having to look the other person in the face. I’ve been involved in church for a zillion years and I’ve seen as many fights over all those years as I have this fall alone.
Prayer groups were the most awesome gossip pick up places EVER. Too bad someone got all guilty about it and made us stop sharing requests for other people. But FB and email have pretty much made up the gap now.
Tracy I am having a drama with a guy over me posting a positive story about W. The guy is a total douchebag. Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh……..I feel your pain.
I’m all for any sort of budget balancing however with the current commitments of Social Security and Medicare they would never be able to cut it down to that. Have you worked in a contingency that would allow them to be phased out? Also are you removing Federal contributions to the education system and putting it fully back in the hands of the states (where it belongs in my humble opinion)?
I’m all for any sort of budget balancing however with the current commitments of Social Security and Medicare they would never be able to cut it down to that. Have you worked in a contingency that would allow them to be phased out?
Yes, and a quite ingenious one, if I may say so. It has a few more details, but you offer insurance companies refundable tax credits–the market value of an annual policy rate, plus 20%–to insure people with certain pre-existing conditions and those who fall into certain income brackets. It’s voluntary, entirely free market, already has built-in incentive to get off government programs (with an increase in service quality), is revenue neutral, and helps to reduce insurance costs across the board by effectively erasing the cost of coverage mandates for insurance companies.
Also are you removing Federal contributions to the education system and putting it fully back in the hands of the states (where it belongs in my humble opinion)?
You would have phased reductions in the federal budget, so the states could adjust their own taxation and spending to make up the difference.
I know I get redundant and annoying, constantly beating the same drum, but I just don’t see any plan that is based on the Federal government behaving justly and magnanimously towards the states as a viable, long-term strategy.
Get rid of the income tax. That gelds the Congress and makes them impotent, and the income tax is un-Constitutional (once you repeal the ridiculous 16th Amendment). At the same time force your local and state politicians to do their jobs. They are the check and balance that limits the Fed from getting out of control. You pay their salaries. Make them do their jobs. You have much more chance of getting a Governor or State Senator to behave than you do a national politician. Focus your energies where they can do the most good.
I don’t mean to be the curmudgeonly old man telling the kids to get off his sidewalk, BUT, we don’t need more plans. The problem is not that we lack bright people formulating good, solid plans. We’ve got the Constitution. It doesn’t need improving. It doesn’t need tweaking. Our founders threw off the shackles of monarchy and gave us an independent nation. A nation with weak Federal powers and strong powers at the individual, local and state levels. We already have what we need. We just need to take what has been given us and stop those who are taking it from us. We have the mechanisms. Push your local politicians to do their jobs and protect your State from out of control Federal politicians.
I know I get redundant and annoying, constantly beating the same drum, but I just don’t see any plan that is based on the Federal government behaving justly and magnanimously towards the states as a viable, long-term strategy.
Neither do I, which is why my plan sidesteps the traditional hobby horses of demagogues. It steals the Left’s thunder by proclaiming “free insurance” and looking at for the little guy, while also eroding dependency on the programs that it held up as necessity for their continuance.
Get rid of the income tax. That gelds the Congress and makes them impotent, and the income tax is un-Constitutional (once you repeal the ridiculous 16th Amendment).
That’s all well and good, but how do you attack it on a political level? This has been tried before and died on the vine because they got snagged one detail or another. Every effort of reform has to figure out how to navigate the political waters and while it’s rather heroic and refreshing to say “damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead,” it also means you’re likely to end up with your ship in splinters.
I don’t mean to be the curmudgeonly old man telling the kids to get off his sidewalk, BUT, we don’t need more plans. The problem is not that we lack bright people formulating good, solid plans. We’ve got the Constitution. It doesn’t need improving. It doesn’t need tweaking.
I more or less agree with you, but it isn’t the Constitution that we’re trying to fix or replace, it’s the mountain of shit we’ve heaped on it and now it’s become an engineering problem to remove the several metric tons of said shit before we can recover our institutions. A general does not go into battle without a plan without a plan, even a simple one. What you declare is an end state–one which we all want–but we need to cut a path through the brambles to get there.
You make some good points. I don’t hold out much hope of ever repealing the income tax and I also don’t hold out hope of getting the Fed under control while it exists. I have little hope of ever having a Congress and President working in concert for the betterment of us citizens. I’ve seen a few more administrations than you and it’s always a disappointment. I’ve concluded it’s the nature of the beast. I don’t know if this can be fixed at the State and local level, but the States really do have the power. It just seems to me it is more likely an entity will rise up and try to grasp power it had, as opposed to an entity that has usurped power voluntarily return it.
I don’t sincerely have much hope of either of our approaches gaining steam. Politicians have been disappointing me for my entire life, and I don’t see significant change on the horizon. I’m starting to wonder if it’s not like spots and leopards.
They aren’t going to voluntarily return it. They’re going to be voted out of office by voters with pitchforks sharpened. So, my faith is in the voters who are royally pissed off. That’s the difference this time. I think we have a reasonable chance of getting back to Reagan-era reforms, which were significant, but not hugely dramatic. And I think if voter rage persists and the new blood in Congress does is job fast enough, we could make even more progress. In other words, I see a window of opportunity, not a new era.
I’ve seen this movie before. Are people mad? Yes. Furious? Yes. Enough for a major shift in Congress in ‘10? Maybe. Will the people who replace them be any better? Nah. There just aren’t enough good, honest, sincere, Constitutional Oath Comprehending politicians out there to get a majority in Congress.
So have I. I watched the ‘94 sweep unfold on Rush’s syndicated TV show when I was 9. I remember it and I remember how close–and how far–we were on getting things done. I also know that other people are paying attention to history and learning from it…like me.
But this is the sequel and it is always a fallacy to assume history is purely cyclical. Things *have* happened this time, which didn’t happen last time and some of those things have been hopeful. Is disappointment possible? Sure. I fully accept that and have emphasized in the past that I will not engage in prediction. But I also can’t work axiomatically on it. The American Revolution would’ve never happened if the Founders worked that way.
There just aren’t enough good, honest, sincere, Constitutional Oath Comprehending politicians out there to get a majority in Congress.
Seeing how many are rising up from the grassroots to challenge incumbents, I’m not sure that’s the case. But in any case, we don’t need all of them to be virtuous. We only need enough good men in there to hold the iron to the feet of those who are smart and sacred enough to be worried about holding on to their jobs.
I agree that some of this is different. To me, the biggest, most critical component is “new media.” Let’s look at Perot’s Presidential bid. I didn’t like either of the mainstream choices, and probably would have voted Perot if I didn’t think I’d be wasting my ballot. I don’t think Perot would have been a great President either, but I was more than sick with the poltics of usual of the major parties. But, all there was was the MSM at the time. It was very hard to really know how serious Perot’s bid was, or how many folks were willing to vote for him.
Now with blogs, cable news pundits and a plethora of weblogs, etc. we have more information. That’s why I say Holloway is so interesting. In prior times the guy wouldn’t stand a chance. He would get no coverage. Now, he’s got a chance. If he does well it will be a testament to two things; new media really is a paradigm shift, and there are a lot of really, really pissed off folks out there, and they’ve been pissed off for a long time.
Like I’ve said, I’ve seen this movie before, and it always ends the same way, but the new media does give it a new wrinkle.
And by erasing the cost of coverage mandates, you reduces the barriers to market entry for smaller insurance providers, increasing competitive pressure to reduce policy prices, acting both as a control on how much is paid out in tax credits and reducing the cost of insurance even further.
To prevent insurance companies from abusing the tax credit by offering “cadillac plans” and claiming the tax credits, you look at the average cost of normal plans and the average cost of a high-end plans across the marketplace and then peg a limit to a proportional percentage of the most expensive plan a company offers. If they attempt to raise their prices in order to raise their claim on tax credits, they then have to weight that against what prices the market can support.
And we’ll do the same to the software companies and auto companies and pizzerias and widget vendors?
As Veruckt pointed out weeks ago, why have the costs of cosmetic medical procedures like eye surgery and breast implants come way down, and quality gone way up, when they are not covered by insurance? The insurance industry is not the problem, and it certainly doesn’t need more controls. The last thing we need is more regulation and red-tape between doctors and their patients, and their patients’ pocketbooks.
As Veruckt pointed out weeks ago, why have the costs of cosmetic medical procedures like eye surgery and breast implants come way down, and quality gone way up, when they are not covered by insurance? The insurance industry is not the problem, and it certainly doesn’t need more controls. The last thing we need is more regulation and red-tape between doctors and their patients, and their patients’ pocketbooks.
Where did I say increased regulation for the insurance industry?
If you claim a tax credit or tax deduction, there are certain conditions that have to be met to claim it, correct? As onerous as the tax code is, there isn’t anything in tax incentives telling you how to run your business or do your job (those are separate parasitisms of government regulation). You’re the one who has to claim the tax incentive; the government is more than happy when you don’t. If insurance companies want to claim these tax credits, they have to meet certain conditions, but there is nothing to tell them how to meet those conditions. They have to determine that themselves.
You’re also missing the point that a big fat hole has just been punched in government healthcare programs (which already have a profound effect on the healthcare industry through indirect regulation) and you’re well on your way to killing them outright. It becomes that much easier down to de-regulate when you’ve removed so much government machinery.
I also think it’s politically more palpable because you’re not shutting down the programs outright or even cutting funding, but instead reducing dependency on those programs and removing the justification for their continued existence.
What makes this all interesting is it will give us insight into the “silent majority” component of this. I probably align with most of what the Tea Party movement stands for, but I’ve never gone to a Tea Party function, or marched on Washington. Yet, I’m mad. Very mad. I’ve been mad for years. If a candidate like Holloway popped up in my district I’d vote for him.
Only a small percentage of people will march, or protest, or call their Congressperson, and Congresspeople, Emmanuel, Axelrod and Obama know that, but nobody really knows how big this movement is. Is it 20% of America? 40%? 60%? And, even if it is a majority will they really risk losing political clout for a “sincere,” non-connected candidate like Holloway. Typically, folks hate the other bozo Senators, but won’t vote their own bozo out because he or she delivers the pork to their backyards. A win for Holloway would be huge. It would mean this movement is much, much bigger than anyone conceives.
I don’t know what the answer is, but it would be cool to see.
That’s my favorite thing about Threedonia, BarryO, and that’s why I am very happy when folks with differing opinions drop in and give their 2 cents.
I was thinking about something that you might relate to this morning…
I think something many liberals and Democrats (often one in the same) don’t understand about many conservatives and Republicans (too often not the same) is we get angry and saddened by the same things you do. It honestly disgusts me that there are families in this great, wealthy land of ours who have no medical insurance. It maddens me that there are folks over-extended in their loan obligations, unemployed, facing hardship. Like liberals and Democrats, when I see those things I want to help those people and I want to make our country better. Unlike liberals and Democrats I don’t think of the Government as the solution.
Our founding documents are structured so that Government has a very limited role in our lives and it’s up to us, independently, individually, to fix the things that need fixing. Work in a soup kitchen, donate to charity, be a big brother or big sister… Our great nation has many, many great charitably organizations that help the indigent, one case at a time. And, unfortunately, that’s the only, real way to solve these problems; one person at a time.
It’s not the issues we disagree on, nor does either side like sympathy or compassion. It’s the tools we disagree on. I know Government can make some of these things better; it works that way in many other countries. Most of Western Europe have Governments much more involved in citizens’ lives and many of those countries function well. But it’s a very different type of Government and a very different type of citizen. The U.S. has always been capable of big, great things, primarily because our Government is limited. We are the most charitable nation in the world. We are the most inventive nation in the world. We are the freest nation in the world. The more we try to make our Constitution a tool it is not, the less able that document is to function as a guidepost for the structure of good governance.
We all see these problems and we want a magic wand to fix them, but giving a 25 year old who makes $50k/year “free” health care because he does not understand the importance of health care in his life, and chooses to spend his money on other things does not “fix” that 25 year old. It actually makes him less responsible, worse. Voting to take money from some guy in Oregon to give insurance to the family next to you in Texas does not make you a better neighbor. You live next door to a family in need and you did not help them personally. You did not sacrifice your time to help them get work so they can pay their bills. You made a guy in Oregon who has a good job work some extra hours to buy them health care.
The Government is often an attractive option because it’s so big, and so remote. It’s easy to forget we’re robbing our neighbors when Government implements a program. That very remoteness also means lessons aren’t learned when Government does step in. That’s precisely the reason why I never look to Government as a good solution when I see something wrong in my life, our the lives of others.
Hoffman’s in the lead in NY23, ahead by four or five points. Palin, Pawlenty and DeMint have now endorsed him.
Anyway, let me float an idea? I’ve talked about and presented a balanced budget amendment that would limit spending to 10% of GDP, which would be $1.4 trillion. Under that budget, I believe you might be able to fit all current military, intelligence and law enforcement expenditures, without cutting any fat whatsoever. Needless to say, if you were to cut budgetary fat, you would not adversely effect capabilities in any one of those areas and would still have (probably) hundreds of billions left over to throw at whatever you wanted to.
David,
I’m not a fan of the principle. Ronald Reagan taught me budget deficits are not necessarily bad things. I like the idea of Congress having to balance its checkbook, but going into debt isn’t bad, if you’re borrowing for something worthwhile.
I have three College degrees and completely funded two with loans. I borrowed money to pay for 100% of the tuition in both cases. One out of necessity, the other because I could. In both instances my annual income upon graduation was greater than the entire amount of the money borrowed. Did I deficit spend? In the first case absolutely. I was literally homeless and the amount I borrowed far exceeded my net worth. But, upon graduation I was earning more than enough to pay off the loan, and purchase other things. Was I right to borrow the money? It is, as the kids say, “a no-brainer.”
Let’s say you have two kids from poor families. They both go to State Universities and borrow $50k over the course of 4 years to fund their tuition, room, board, books and beer. Student A majors in Electrical Engineering and gets a job making $70k/year upon graduation. Student B majors in History and gets a job at Target making $6/hour/20 hours a week (Student B is real. I know him.) If Student B hadn’t gone to University he could have the same job. Student B was wrong to deficit spend, Student A was right.
Let’s take two Presidents. President A runs up deficits funding weapons programs that cause his adversary to collapse. The “peace dividend” reduces military spending in ensuing years and the money injected into the defense industry boosts tax revenues and results in new innovations improving efficiency. President B runs up deficits funding cash for clunkers and socialized medicine. This decreases productivity and causes a reduction in tax revenues. President B is like the History major working at Target.
Good point, but the only reason President A ran up deficits is that he was still saddled with social programs accumulated under LBJ and Carter, as well as a Congress that could have its arm twisted only so far. Moreover, given enough time, Congress is almost always going to revert to the position of Student or President B. The sum of it is this: fiscal discipline should not be dependent on election cycles.
But David, Presidents A and B both have to live in the real world. What President doesn’t believe he or she has been saddled with obligations from prior administrations and Congress’? It is ever so.
What if Bush II and Congress ran out of funds in year 2 of the Iraq War? What if Reagan and Congress ran out of funds a year before the wall fell? Borrowing isn’t bad if one borrows for the right reasons. Some of the best progress this nation has made has come on the back of deficit spending. It’s like my example with borrowing for College. If you borrow money for reasons that result in increased tax receipts in the future that outweigh the deficit you done good!
My wife and I borrowed a hell of a lot of money, money we didn’t have, to buy our home. Even in this crappy market it’s appreciated and we have tons of equity. Some day we’ll sell it for much more than we paid for it and invest the windfall. Deficit spending is not always bad and sometimes governments need to do it for good reasons.
You can put in exceptions and triggers for necessary situations. In fact, several versions of the BBAs that were floating around in the 90s had such provisions in place.
David I saw that from Club for Growth’s story and it is fabulous. I am so pumped. What we need to do is this: Champion the conservative in the districts that run center right and then help them win the primarys. If they get screwed over by the RHINO via the national party then we push in the General election. Hoffman may make the a-holes in DC shut up about moderating the partys stance. Maybe Joe Scarborough and Peggy Noonan will realize, the party belongs to US not them.
I agree that it would be very, very cool if Hoffman wins. The only thing he has going for him is he’s not a douche. The other two douches running have the party affiliations, the money, the endorsements… Hoffman has little charisma, and even less money, but he seems sincere and he doesn’t appear to be a politician. If he wins there is absolutely no way anyone can confuse his victory as anything but a referendum against douchebag politicians.
SEMPER FI!
What does everyone think of that?
David,
It’s a tough idea to sell, because it’s esoteric and not too sexy, but the real answer to tying Congress’ hands and decreasing spending is to repeal the 16th Amendment and do away with the income tax. It is in complete opposition with what the founders intended and it allows the Congress to tax and spend in secrecy. Congress is supposed to levy taxes in daylight, and fund their initiatives off of those taxes. If they want to do something stupid, and need to raise money, then they have to come after an industry. And when they do that we see the direct effects. When the bastards get out of control we see it in the price of our tea and we tell them to stop.
Also, taxing productivity is an utter abomination. It is disgusting. A nation of free men and women should not allow it.
Ideally, I would agree tax reform should be the first goal, but trying to reform the tax code is fraught with peril because voters tend to misunderstand how taxation works. They understand tax cuts well enough, but try to explain something like a national sales tax and the usual response is “I don’t want to pay sales tax on top of everything else,” when you just explained to them that it would replace other forms of taxation. This then opens the opportunity for the other side to mis-characterize efforts at tax reform. It’s easy to see why a flat-rate income tax has the widest support; it’s the easiest to understand.
If you put a choke-hold on spending, you reduce the need and justification for higher taxes. It becomes easier to reduce them and, more importantly, to reform the tax system.
David,
I agree that tax reform is very difficult, maybe impossible for the reasons you mention. I do not agree that a choke hold can, or should, be put on spending. Look at the current Administration and Congress. If you limit the size of the pie they would simply redistribute the pie to further damage the institutions you prefer; military, and, umm, military, in order to fund the institutions they hold dear; giving free stuff to people. Then, every 4 or 8 years we could be subject to huge shifts in government funding. How do you run a military like that?
1. You have plans for transition, preferably laid down before the amendment.
2. A successful balanced budget amendment builds a political cachet to pass other amendments that reinforce limits of what the fed gov’t can spend money on.
Tea Party Nation is having a big to-do in Nashville on Feb 5 and 6th and they are listing Sarah Palin as one of the keynote speakers with more to come. I have to figure Rudy will be here (he loves Nashville) but who knows who else they have up their sleeve. If anyone would be interested in trotting over to “the ville” (that’s what the cool kids call it) let me know and I will post the details here as I get them. Scott it wouldn’t be that long of a drive for you.
I’ve been watching a FB drama unwind most of the day. Two women from my church fighting. Full grown women with children. Of course I’m watching this. What did I do before FB?
That’s awesome — I mean sad Tracy. Very sad. Don’t they know they’re supposed to fight in the parking lot after church — old school? And then gossip about it — I mean make a prayer request?
That was one of the funniest parts, one of the updates was a prayer request for her “persecution” on FB, which of course made everyone curious.
I wonder if some of the fights I have seen lately between some of the church ladies would have happened if not for the internet. It’s connecting people who would have probably never met otherwise and in ways that encourage them to “share” themselves without having to look the other person in the face. I’ve been involved in church for a zillion years and I’ve seen as many fights over all those years as I have this fall alone.
Prayer groups were the most awesome gossip pick up places EVER. Too bad someone got all guilty about it and made us stop sharing requests for other people. But FB and email have pretty much made up the gap now.
You are evil, Tracy! Evil and funny!
Tracy I am having a drama with a guy over me posting a positive story about W. The guy is a total douchebag. Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh……..I feel your pain.
David,
I’m all for any sort of budget balancing however with the current commitments of Social Security and Medicare they would never be able to cut it down to that. Have you worked in a contingency that would allow them to be phased out? Also are you removing Federal contributions to the education system and putting it fully back in the hands of the states (where it belongs in my humble opinion)?
I’m all for any sort of budget balancing however with the current commitments of Social Security and Medicare they would never be able to cut it down to that. Have you worked in a contingency that would allow them to be phased out?
Yes, and a quite ingenious one, if I may say so. It has a few more details, but you offer insurance companies refundable tax credits–the market value of an annual policy rate, plus 20%–to insure people with certain pre-existing conditions and those who fall into certain income brackets. It’s voluntary, entirely free market, already has built-in incentive to get off government programs (with an increase in service quality), is revenue neutral, and helps to reduce insurance costs across the board by effectively erasing the cost of coverage mandates for insurance companies.
Also are you removing Federal contributions to the education system and putting it fully back in the hands of the states (where it belongs in my humble opinion)?
You would have phased reductions in the federal budget, so the states could adjust their own taxation and spending to make up the difference.
I know I get redundant and annoying, constantly beating the same drum, but I just don’t see any plan that is based on the Federal government behaving justly and magnanimously towards the states as a viable, long-term strategy.
Get rid of the income tax. That gelds the Congress and makes them impotent, and the income tax is un-Constitutional (once you repeal the ridiculous 16th Amendment). At the same time force your local and state politicians to do their jobs. They are the check and balance that limits the Fed from getting out of control. You pay their salaries. Make them do their jobs. You have much more chance of getting a Governor or State Senator to behave than you do a national politician. Focus your energies where they can do the most good.
I don’t mean to be the curmudgeonly old man telling the kids to get off his sidewalk, BUT, we don’t need more plans. The problem is not that we lack bright people formulating good, solid plans. We’ve got the Constitution. It doesn’t need improving. It doesn’t need tweaking. Our founders threw off the shackles of monarchy and gave us an independent nation. A nation with weak Federal powers and strong powers at the individual, local and state levels. We already have what we need. We just need to take what has been given us and stop those who are taking it from us. We have the mechanisms. Push your local politicians to do their jobs and protect your State from out of control Federal politicians.
I know I get redundant and annoying, constantly beating the same drum, but I just don’t see any plan that is based on the Federal government behaving justly and magnanimously towards the states as a viable, long-term strategy.
Neither do I, which is why my plan sidesteps the traditional hobby horses of demagogues. It steals the Left’s thunder by proclaiming “free insurance” and looking at for the little guy, while also eroding dependency on the programs that it held up as necessity for their continuance.
Get rid of the income tax. That gelds the Congress and makes them impotent, and the income tax is un-Constitutional (once you repeal the ridiculous 16th Amendment).
That’s all well and good, but how do you attack it on a political level? This has been tried before and died on the vine because they got snagged one detail or another. Every effort of reform has to figure out how to navigate the political waters and while it’s rather heroic and refreshing to say “damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead,” it also means you’re likely to end up with your ship in splinters.
I don’t mean to be the curmudgeonly old man telling the kids to get off his sidewalk, BUT, we don’t need more plans. The problem is not that we lack bright people formulating good, solid plans. We’ve got the Constitution. It doesn’t need improving. It doesn’t need tweaking.
I more or less agree with you, but it isn’t the Constitution that we’re trying to fix or replace, it’s the mountain of shit we’ve heaped on it and now it’s become an engineering problem to remove the several metric tons of said shit before we can recover our institutions. A general does not go into battle without a plan without a plan, even a simple one. What you declare is an end state–one which we all want–but we need to cut a path through the brambles to get there.
David,
You make some good points. I don’t hold out much hope of ever repealing the income tax and I also don’t hold out hope of getting the Fed under control while it exists. I have little hope of ever having a Congress and President working in concert for the betterment of us citizens. I’ve seen a few more administrations than you and it’s always a disappointment. I’ve concluded it’s the nature of the beast. I don’t know if this can be fixed at the State and local level, but the States really do have the power. It just seems to me it is more likely an entity will rise up and try to grasp power it had, as opposed to an entity that has usurped power voluntarily return it.
I don’t sincerely have much hope of either of our approaches gaining steam. Politicians have been disappointing me for my entire life, and I don’t see significant change on the horizon. I’m starting to wonder if it’s not like spots and leopards.
They aren’t going to voluntarily return it. They’re going to be voted out of office by voters with pitchforks sharpened. So, my faith is in the voters who are royally pissed off. That’s the difference this time. I think we have a reasonable chance of getting back to Reagan-era reforms, which were significant, but not hugely dramatic. And I think if voter rage persists and the new blood in Congress does is job fast enough, we could make even more progress. In other words, I see a window of opportunity, not a new era.
David,
I’ve seen this movie before. Are people mad? Yes. Furious? Yes. Enough for a major shift in Congress in ‘10? Maybe. Will the people who replace them be any better? Nah. There just aren’t enough good, honest, sincere, Constitutional Oath Comprehending politicians out there to get a majority in Congress.
I’ve seen this movie before.
So have I. I watched the ‘94 sweep unfold on Rush’s syndicated TV show when I was 9. I remember it and I remember how close–and how far–we were on getting things done. I also know that other people are paying attention to history and learning from it…like me.
But this is the sequel and it is always a fallacy to assume history is purely cyclical. Things *have* happened this time, which didn’t happen last time and some of those things have been hopeful. Is disappointment possible? Sure. I fully accept that and have emphasized in the past that I will not engage in prediction. But I also can’t work axiomatically on it. The American Revolution would’ve never happened if the Founders worked that way.
There just aren’t enough good, honest, sincere, Constitutional Oath Comprehending politicians out there to get a majority in Congress.
Seeing how many are rising up from the grassroots to challenge incumbents, I’m not sure that’s the case. But in any case, we don’t need all of them to be virtuous. We only need enough good men in there to hold the iron to the feet of those who are smart and sacred enough to be worried about holding on to their jobs.
David,
I agree that some of this is different. To me, the biggest, most critical component is “new media.” Let’s look at Perot’s Presidential bid. I didn’t like either of the mainstream choices, and probably would have voted Perot if I didn’t think I’d be wasting my ballot. I don’t think Perot would have been a great President either, but I was more than sick with the poltics of usual of the major parties. But, all there was was the MSM at the time. It was very hard to really know how serious Perot’s bid was, or how many folks were willing to vote for him.
Now with blogs, cable news pundits and a plethora of weblogs, etc. we have more information. That’s why I say Holloway is so interesting. In prior times the guy wouldn’t stand a chance. He would get no coverage. Now, he’s got a chance. If he does well it will be a testament to two things; new media really is a paradigm shift, and there are a lot of really, really pissed off folks out there, and they’ve been pissed off for a long time.
Like I’ve said, I’ve seen this movie before, and it always ends the same way, but the new media does give it a new wrinkle.
And by erasing the cost of coverage mandates, you reduces the barriers to market entry for smaller insurance providers, increasing competitive pressure to reduce policy prices, acting both as a control on how much is paid out in tax credits and reducing the cost of insurance even further.
To prevent insurance companies from abusing the tax credit by offering “cadillac plans” and claiming the tax credits, you look at the average cost of normal plans and the average cost of a high-end plans across the marketplace and then peg a limit to a proportional percentage of the most expensive plan a company offers. If they attempt to raise their prices in order to raise their claim on tax credits, they then have to weight that against what prices the market can support.
And we’ll do the same to the software companies and auto companies and pizzerias and widget vendors?
As Veruckt pointed out weeks ago, why have the costs of cosmetic medical procedures like eye surgery and breast implants come way down, and quality gone way up, when they are not covered by insurance? The insurance industry is not the problem, and it certainly doesn’t need more controls. The last thing we need is more regulation and red-tape between doctors and their patients, and their patients’ pocketbooks.
As Veruckt pointed out weeks ago, why have the costs of cosmetic medical procedures like eye surgery and breast implants come way down, and quality gone way up, when they are not covered by insurance? The insurance industry is not the problem, and it certainly doesn’t need more controls. The last thing we need is more regulation and red-tape between doctors and their patients, and their patients’ pocketbooks.
Where did I say increased regulation for the insurance industry?
If you claim a tax credit or tax deduction, there are certain conditions that have to be met to claim it, correct? As onerous as the tax code is, there isn’t anything in tax incentives telling you how to run your business or do your job (those are separate parasitisms of government regulation). You’re the one who has to claim the tax incentive; the government is more than happy when you don’t. If insurance companies want to claim these tax credits, they have to meet certain conditions, but there is nothing to tell them how to meet those conditions. They have to determine that themselves.
You’re also missing the point that a big fat hole has just been punched in government healthcare programs (which already have a profound effect on the healthcare industry through indirect regulation) and you’re well on your way to killing them outright. It becomes that much easier down to de-regulate when you’ve removed so much government machinery.
I also think it’s politically more palpable because you’re not shutting down the programs outright or even cutting funding, but instead reducing dependency on those programs and removing the justification for their continued existence.
Maybe so,Veruckt…been a while since I’ve been to Nashville
Wow I feel so inspired. Rufus and David..two smart dudes!
What makes this all interesting is it will give us insight into the “silent majority” component of this. I probably align with most of what the Tea Party movement stands for, but I’ve never gone to a Tea Party function, or marched on Washington. Yet, I’m mad. Very mad. I’ve been mad for years. If a candidate like Holloway popped up in my district I’d vote for him.
Only a small percentage of people will march, or protest, or call their Congressperson, and Congresspeople, Emmanuel, Axelrod and Obama know that, but nobody really knows how big this movement is. Is it 20% of America? 40%? 60%? And, even if it is a majority will they really risk losing political clout for a “sincere,” non-connected candidate like Holloway. Typically, folks hate the other bozo Senators, but won’t vote their own bozo out because he or she delivers the pork to their backyards. A win for Holloway would be huge. It would mean this movement is much, much bigger than anyone conceives.
I don’t know what the answer is, but it would be cool to see.
Ditto.
I don’t know what the answer is, but it would be cool to see.
Agreed.
Talk about windbags…you put Ayn Rand to shame
Very funny, Scott M. Sometimes my incredibly fast typing speed gets ahead of my self-edit function.
It’s awesome to see great minds “working it out.” Thanks David & Rufus for great points.
That’s my favorite thing about Threedonia, BarryO, and that’s why I am very happy when folks with differing opinions drop in and give their 2 cents.
I was thinking about something that you might relate to this morning…
I think something many liberals and Democrats (often one in the same) don’t understand about many conservatives and Republicans (too often not the same) is we get angry and saddened by the same things you do. It honestly disgusts me that there are families in this great, wealthy land of ours who have no medical insurance. It maddens me that there are folks over-extended in their loan obligations, unemployed, facing hardship. Like liberals and Democrats, when I see those things I want to help those people and I want to make our country better. Unlike liberals and Democrats I don’t think of the Government as the solution.
Our founding documents are structured so that Government has a very limited role in our lives and it’s up to us, independently, individually, to fix the things that need fixing. Work in a soup kitchen, donate to charity, be a big brother or big sister… Our great nation has many, many great charitably organizations that help the indigent, one case at a time. And, unfortunately, that’s the only, real way to solve these problems; one person at a time.
It’s not the issues we disagree on, nor does either side like sympathy or compassion. It’s the tools we disagree on. I know Government can make some of these things better; it works that way in many other countries. Most of Western Europe have Governments much more involved in citizens’ lives and many of those countries function well. But it’s a very different type of Government and a very different type of citizen. The U.S. has always been capable of big, great things, primarily because our Government is limited. We are the most charitable nation in the world. We are the most inventive nation in the world. We are the freest nation in the world. The more we try to make our Constitution a tool it is not, the less able that document is to function as a guidepost for the structure of good governance.
We all see these problems and we want a magic wand to fix them, but giving a 25 year old who makes $50k/year “free” health care because he does not understand the importance of health care in his life, and chooses to spend his money on other things does not “fix” that 25 year old. It actually makes him less responsible, worse. Voting to take money from some guy in Oregon to give insurance to the family next to you in Texas does not make you a better neighbor. You live next door to a family in need and you did not help them personally. You did not sacrifice your time to help them get work so they can pay their bills. You made a guy in Oregon who has a good job work some extra hours to buy them health care.
The Government is often an attractive option because it’s so big, and so remote. It’s easy to forget we’re robbing our neighbors when Government implements a program. That very remoteness also means lessons aren’t learned when Government does step in. That’s precisely the reason why I never look to Government as a good solution when I see something wrong in my life, our the lives of others.
Just kidding….
Too late, Scott. You’ve already triggered it. You won’t know where or when, but retribution will happen and it will involve lots of words…
Lots of big words. Words with multiple syllables.
Please,don’t f*ck up my new PC,David