Sanity in general, but mainly fiscal sanity. Strange how Stewart's rally this weekend ignores that. Anyway, onto the proposed amendments - or more accurately ideas for amendments requirements that aren't translated (yet) into "legal speak".

Balanced Budget:

• Spending cannot be higher than the prior year's amount, plus the rate of inflation and population growth.
• If, at the end of a given fiscal year, the estimates were wrong and the budget is still not balanced, the difference would automatically be cut from the budget for the next fiscal year according to a very specific, predetermined formula.
• An exception can be included for war declared by Congress, or a national calamity. The benchmark for meeting the definition of the latter would need to be quite high, something in the range of 90 percent of members of Congress agreeing. That may seem like an unrealistic bar, but how many politicians would have voted against declaring 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina a national calamity?
• Federal expenses cannot be pawned off on the states.

Term Limits:
Well, this one is self-explanatory....

Representatives would be limited to three total terms (six total years) and senators would be limited to two total terms (twelve total years).

Note: Interestingly enough, this exact language was proposed by Senator DeMint in November of last year... and has gone nowhere.

Line-Item Veto:
This one is also self-explanatory. It could be abused, but right now, so are the rules in Congress allowing them to add in pet projects to popular/necessary bills under the radar. Ideally, this would be even better if it (instead) limited the number of pages in a bill, required members of Congress to read it, and then required each provision/article/whatever to be voted on separately and thrown out if it could not pass on its own.

In addition, other "common sense" reforms would need to be enacted at a slightly lower level than amending the Constitution:

Lobbying Bill Objectives:

• To force any nationally elected politician to be at least four years removed from office before he can work as a lobbyist. This would take most of their appeal to lobbying firms away because their insider contacts would be much less relevant after four years. It would also prevent people from using political office only as an entryway into a lucrative lobbying career, which happens all too often.
• Family members of current members of Congress cannot be lobbyists. Period. It's almost embarrassing that this has not already been outlawed. A recent CBS News investigation revealed, "19 federal lobbyists closely related to members of Congress, including dads, wives, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, in-laws, and more."
  Although lobbyists cannot directly lobby their relatives, that rule is really just for show. If your daughter is a lobbyist for a defense contractor and you sit on a committee that can approve a project her company is pitching, isn't that a pretty big conflict of interest?

Require War To Be Declared:
For starters, this prevents the Congress from declaring military appropriations to be "emergency spending" without declaring war. Which makes sense, as it isn't really an emergency if you won't declare a war.

If the cause is just, the Congress will support it. And if it doesn't, because of politics or any other petty reason, then we have even more problems than I thought.

Binding Commissions:
Washington keeps making commissions to look into how to solve problems, getting recommendations, and completely ignoring them. This needs to stop. It also needs to be a commission of outsiders (like the Grace Commission in the 80s, that was sadly ignored by Congress). The politicians are already beholden to special interests and political lobbies.

Redraw The Battle Lines:
Gerrymandering must end. Thus, the districts can't be drawn by politicians - of either party. Strangely, California (yes, California) has already enacted a reform to stop this. Districts in California are now shaped by a fourteen-member commission, chosen like a jury. Even better, none of those chosen can be of the "political class". It might not be a perfect reform, but it is a hell of a lot better than what is in most states. (Of course, my state's is really easy, as it is only one district. )

Citizen Bonds:
Create a new kind of bond that is only available to citizens. No more passing the debt burden to our children by using foreigners as the enablers. Plus, this prevents foreign nations from leveraging our debt against us.

Some critics will say we need foreigners to continue buying our debt because we have so much of it to issue and they'll help keep interest rates low. But those critics are only proving my point. If our debt isn't quite so easy and cheap to issue, then maybe we'll start thinking more about it.

The "Stop Empowering Influential Unions" (SEIU) Act:
The rules regarding public unions should be fixed. The politicians don't pay the bills - they generally give the unions what they want to buy their votes. This is literally bankrupting the country. The whole problem can be resolved by eliminating JFK's 1962 executive order on the subject. Yeah, that's right. No law, just an executive order.

Part-Time Politicians:

• Prohibit Fund-Raising When Congress Is In Session
• Utilize Technology (allowing Congress to meet without necessarily being in Washington - even the White House uses this)
• Limit The Length Of Congressional Sessions (like, say, 120 days/year)

Leaving members of Congress in Washington for long periods of time is like locking teenage boys in a room with a bottle of whisky: We're just asking for trouble.

Alright, and since this is so long, I will be moving the actual proposed budget cuts to a separate thread to discuss.

collegestudent22 wrote:Sanity in general, but mainly fiscal sanity. Strange how Stewart's rally this weekend ignores that.

That's because the Rally is not about government policy. Rather, it's about the popular discourse - how people are talking about the government. What you're saying is like... going to a convention for radio engineers and complaining that there are no panels about fcc policy!

FFS, Fuggle. You bicker about the joke at the beginning - which was really poking fun at Stewart's left-wing rally. Perhaps I shouldn't have put it in - I wanted discourse on the IDEAS I posted. You know, the ones you just ignored....

What, you expected better from Fuggle? Really?

The most frightening thing about this is I think I actually agree with most of it.

Springy wrote:The most frightening thing about this is I think I actually agree with most of it.

Why is that frightening?

collegestudent22 wrote:Balanced Budget:

• Spending cannot be higher than the prior year's amount, plus the rate of inflation and population growth.
• If, at the end of a given fiscal year, the estimates were wrong and the budget is still not balanced, the difference would automatically be cut from the budget for the next fiscal year according to a very specific, predetermined formula.
• An exception can be included for war declared by Congress, or a national calamity. The benchmark for meeting the definition of the latter would need to be quite high, something in the range of 90 percent of members of Congress agreeing. That may seem like an unrealistic bar, but how many politicians would have voted against declaring 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina a national calamity?
• Federal expenses cannot be pawned off on the states.

First & second part: I disagree with this one, mostly because I see too many ways for it to cause problems, especially when the economy changes suddenly.
Second Part: The easiest way to get around this is to raise taxes which isn't what you're going for either.
Third Part: 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority is the usual thing for the last part you have there.

Just think about the effect this would have had if it was in place in 2008.

adciv wrote:

Springy wrote:The most frightening thing about this is I think I actually agree with most of it.

Why is that frightening?

Because cs22 and I agreeing with each other is like dividing by zero.

adciv wrote:

collegestudent22 wrote:Balanced Budget

First & second part: I disagree with this one, mostly because I see too many ways for it to cause problems, especially when the economy changes suddenly.

How so?

Second Part: The easiest way to get around this is to raise taxes which isn't what you're going for either.

Not really, as it is essentially a quantification of the Pay-Go rules that they can't get around. Also, the numbers are taken at the end of the year, meaning that regardless of tax increases, you will have the cuts. It is determined by actual revenues, not projected revenues. This is due to the fact that raising taxes =/= raising revenues. Roughly 19% of GDP being raised in tax revenue is fairly constant regardless of tax rates.

Third Part: 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority is the usual thing for the last part you have there.

Right. 3/4ths it is then.

Just think about the effect this would have had if it was in place in 2008.

We'd have a small, limited government that wouldn't have wasted trillions of dollars in one year?

The first part I see as troublesome as it does limit spending increases to an arbitrary amount. Thus, even if there was sufficient need and votes, but outside of war & national calamity, it couldn't be approved unless something else is removed. I can't point to anything specific for this, it's more of a limiting factors thing.

We'd have a small, limited government that wouldn't have wasted trillions of dollars in one year?

I'm lumping my thoughts on the 2nd part with the response to this. We'd have had no military budget in 2009. Spending would have had to be reduced by about 1 trillion or so, the way I read this.

Not really, as it is essentially a quantification of the Pay-Go rules that they can't get around. Also, the numbers are taken at the end of the year, meaning that regardless of tax increases, you will have the cuts. It is determined by actual revenues, not projected revenues. This is due to the fact that raising taxes =/= raising revenues. Roughly 19% of GDP being raised in tax revenue is fairly constant regardless of tax rates.

The Pay-Go rules require an offsetting tax or spending cut. Thus, an increase in taxes is an easy way to meet the rules. Also, since you're talking estimates, you are talking projected revenues instead of actual revenues. If you want it to be different, you'll need to change the phrasing of what you posted.

If, at the end of a given fiscal year, the estimates were wrong and the budget is still not balanced, the difference would automatically be cut from the budget for the next fiscal year according to a very specific, predetermined formula.

Think about it as a math equation
RFYX is estimated revenue for fiscal year X
E is the error
RFY1=P+E

If RFY1=3 Trillion and E is negative $1 Trillion
RFY2=2 Trillion
You'd have to cut $1 Trillion from the budget

I'll reply more later (I'll admit I'm at a bar on a phone waiting) but my back of the napkin math shows your plan having very little effect on lowering the deficit. Can you fill in your numbers and show your work on these proposals?

Also, citizen bonds. Explain how these are different than treasuries, or in any way shape or form congruous with free markets? I font think I get what you're going for, or perhaps you don't get how that would be abused, barring terrible government regulation of the bond market...

adciv wrote:The first part I see as troublesome as it does limit spending increases to an arbitrary amount. Thus, even if there was sufficient need and votes, but outside of war & national calamity, it couldn't be approved unless something else is removed. I can't point to anything specific for this, it's more of a limiting factors thing.

I suppose then we have a disagreement here. What specific need could require an increase of more than the rate of inflation + the rate of population growth and yet not be a war or national calamity? I have trouble finding such a thing. Also, the limiting factor on spending is kind of the point, here.

We'd have a small, limited government that wouldn't have wasted trillions of dollars in one year?

I'm lumping my thoughts on the 2nd part with the response to this. We'd have had no military budget in 2009. Spending would have had to be reduced by about 1 trillion or so, the way I read this.

Not quite. This would require there be cuts, yes, but the formula used to determine those cuts would not focus solely on one area of the budget - instead cutting EVERYTHING. (Roughly following the CATO plan or a similar one to achieve $1 trillion cuts.)

The Pay-Go rules require an offsetting tax or spending cut. Thus, an increase in taxes is an easy way to meet the rules.

Reread the phrasing - the amendment would require cuts - not increases. The point, however, is not to prevent tax increases, but require a balanced budget. Because they will never be able to increase taxes enough to cover it (mostly because tax increases do not actually increase revenues) eventually the budget will be balanced despite estimates from tax increases.

Also, since you're talking estimates, you are talking projected revenues instead of actual revenues. If you want it to be different, you'll need to change the phrasing of what you posted.

If, at the end of a given fiscal year, the estimates were wrong and the budget is still not balanced, the difference would automatically be cut from the budget for the next fiscal year according to a very specific, predetermined formula.

You are correct. I would be better saying that even if they raise taxes, they will still have to cut - drastically. Also, it is possible to cut $1T from the budget, and I would argue that it is a necessary thing to do.

maoof wrote:I'll reply more later (I'll admit I'm at a bar on a phone waiting) but my back of the napkin math shows your plan having very little effect on lowering the deficit. Can you fill in your numbers and show your work on these proposals?

This amendment would require the budget to be balanced. It is not, however, the plan to balance it - I will merely point to the CATO plan for now. (There would be a formula to provide for cuts to balance the budget after each year - as provided by the amendment, but I cannot say that I am knowledgeable enough about the minutia to propose specific cuts here).

Also, citizen bonds. Explain how these are different than treasuries, or in any way shape or form congruous with free markets? I font think I get what you're going for, or perhaps you don't get how that would be abused, barring terrible government regulation of the bond market...

Treasuries that are only sold to citizens (and possibly legal immigrants). Hence, we would stop selling treasuries to foreign nations, especially ones like China that are (at best) indifferent towards us, and likely hostile. I fail to see how stopping selling to foreigners would be abused. At least not in a way that results in the same degree of a problem as now. Now, whether to make the "citizen-only" treasuries the only ones sold, or to just make them more attractive through various policies, is debatable.

If you simply balance a budget when you're 14T in the hole, you never climb out How do you propose we get out of the hole?

And your proposal prohibits all foreign investment in US Treasuries?! Please confirm.

maoof wrote:If you simply balance a budget when you're 14T in the hole, you never climb out. How do you propose we get out of the hole?

Ah, see you asked about the deficit, not the debt. Now, to reduce the debt is simple - part of the budget must be put towards paying down the debt (which I believe is part of the CATO plan, IIRC). That, along with the normal economic growth of the country and inflation over vast amounts of time will reduce the debt. (The economic growth/inflation is being put here because over time GDP grows, so the budget will grow, and so will the amount used to pay down the debt.)

And your proposal prohibits all foreign investment in US Treasuries?! Please confirm.

The point here is not to prohibit foreign investment, but to limit it to a certain percentage of the debt - like 25%. This would be done by putting that limit on it, but also by providing incentives for investment in Treasuries by American citizens and (legal) immigrants with this new "better" bond. This "citizen bond" would then have a higher rate of return or other benefits over the Treasuries available to foreign nations/citizens.

The idea is that a large amount of debt owned by foreign nations (like China) means that they have an inordinate amount of influence over us. Right now, we cannot get a whole lot done in Southeast Asia because we have to be careful not to piss China off. That is because they own so much of our debt that they could severely damage our economy. To quote Hillary Clinton in May:

Hillary Clinton wrote:We cannot sustain this level of deficit financing and debt without losing our influence, without being constrained in the tough decisions we have to make, it's time to make the national security case about reducing the deficit and getting the debt under control.

In addition, I am adding the proposal of a flat tax system here. The tax system as it stands now is a disaster. A flat tax restores equality under the law. You can have equality under the law, or you can have equitable results - you cannot have both.

Flat Tax:

The flat tax would eliminate virtually everything we hate about our current system (aside from having to hand your money over in the first place). It would be simple and fast to comply with. It would get rid of the special exemptions, loopholes, and kickbacks that benefit primarily lobbyists, special interests, attorneys, major corporations, and America's wealthiest citizens. It would ensure that Congress writes bills without regard to tax handouts or penalties. It would prevent the tax code from being used as a weapon against individuals or companies. It would put a jolt of life into an economy that, by all accounts, has become stagnant. It would incentivize businesses to expand here, thereby creating jobs and a bigger tax base. And, most important, it would make it easier for the middle and lower classes to move up and for the wealthy to stay wealthy.

collegestudent22 wrote:I suppose then we have a disagreement here. What specific need could require an increase of more than the rate of inflation + the rate of population growth and yet not be a war or national calamity? I have trouble finding such a thing. Also, the limiting factor on spending is kind of the point, here.

Two things, really. The first is that if you get a negative inflation rate (deflation) you mess up your contracts that you had budgeted for in the prior year. Second, the easy example is fixing the military in 2001 after the f'ed up cuts that started in 1990. Neither dealt with war so it doesn't fall under your thing there. Besides that, nothing I can think of off he top of my head, though I'm pretty sure some others exist.

Not quite. This would require there be cuts, yes, but the formula used to determine those cuts would not focus solely on one area of the budget - instead cutting EVERYTHING. (Roughly following the CATO plan or a similar one to achieve $1 trillion cuts.)

Then you're going to have to eliminate mandatory spending. Currently, congress has little control over anything but discretionary which only totals $1.3 trillion. Social Security is currently self funded with it's bonds/trust fund. Medicare/Medicaid is mandatory but insufficiently funded. The only give under the existing law is discretionary funding, of which half is the DoD.

Reread the phrasing - the amendment would require cuts - not increases. The point, however, is not to prevent tax increases, but require a balanced budget. Because they will never be able to increase taxes enough to cover it (mostly because tax increases do not actually increase revenues) eventually the budget will be balanced despite estimates from tax increases.

It requires balancing the budget. This can be done through either spending cuts or tax increases under that phrasing. Thus, either would work under the phrasing you have, even if you don't intend for it to mean that. Translation: You need to change your phrasing to get what you mean.

You are correct. I would be better saying that even if they raise taxes, they will still have to cut - drastically. Also, it is possible to cut $1T from the budget, and I would argue that it is a necessary thing to do.

I'd like to see how you would cut $1T from the existing budget. Remember, most of it is mandatory spending not discretionary so you'd have to rewrite existing law in order to do so, not merely stop spending.

adciv wrote:

collegestudent22 wrote:I suppose then we have a disagreement here. What specific need could require an increase of more than the rate of inflation + the rate of population growth and yet not be a war or national calamity? I have trouble finding such a thing. Also, the limiting factor on spending is kind of the point, here.

Two things, really. The first is that if you get a negative inflation rate (deflation) you mess up your contracts that you had budgeted for in the prior year.

Only if 100% of spending is in contracts. Plenty of times cuts must be made while avoiding messing up contracts, and this just becomes one of them.

Second, the easy example is fixing the military in 2001 after the f'ed up cuts that started in 1990. Neither dealt with war so it doesn't fall under your thing there.

Something else would need to be cut then. It isn't that hard.

Not quite. This would require there be cuts, yes, but the formula used to determine those cuts would not focus solely on one area of the budget - instead cutting EVERYTHING. (Roughly following the CATO plan or a similar one to achieve $1 trillion cuts.)

Then you're going to have to eliminate mandatory spending. Currently, congress has little control over anything but discretionary which only totals $1.3 trillion. Social Security is currently self funded with it's bonds/trust fund. Medicare/Medicaid is mandatory but insufficiently funded. The only give under the existing law is discretionary funding, of which half is the DoD.

That is part of the plan, yes. There is no reason that the DoD should be discretionary spending and entitlements should be mandatory. Change that shit.

I'd like to see how you would cut $1T from the existing budget. Remember, most of it is mandatory spending not discretionary so you'd have to rewrite existing law in order to do so, not merely stop spending.

Alright, I will go into it then. To cut $1T from the budget, you would need to do this:

Cuts to the Department of Energy: Savings - $17B
Cuts to the Department of Commerce: Savings - $2B
Cuts to the Department of Agriculture: Savings - $131B
Elimination of the Department of Education: Savings - $107B
Cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services: Savings - $81B
Elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development: Savings - $62B
Cuts to the Department of Transportation: Savings - $85B

Total: $485B - and they haven't even touched Defense, Justice, Labor, State, Interior, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, or Treasury (this would have large cuts merely from the institution of the flat tax). Or any mandatory spending, which also needs to be reduced through privatization of Social Security and massive reforms of Medicare/Medicaid.