The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Nov 15, 2010 0:26:22 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 15, 2010 9:19:05 GMT -5
Probably a good thing you are not running for office.
Please note: I am not calling you dumb or anything like that.
I am calling you unelectable. ;D
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 15, 2010 9:25:23 GMT -5
Probably a good thing you are not running for office. Please note: I am not calling you dumb or anything like that. I am calling you unelectable. ;D Of course, you could make the same comment about anyone from either party who makes a sincere effort to deal with our deficit. Any Republican who includes any kind of tax increase will be tarred, feathered, and run out of town. Any Democrat who suggests cuts or modifications in entitlements will get similar treatment. Hence, the inability of anyone to deal with the deficit issue since Bill Clinton had everything going in the right direction back in the '90s.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 15, 2010 9:45:37 GMT -5
Just for the record, since I am conservative and all, based on this NYT formula it is possible to get all the way there focusing primarily on entitlement reform & some other small spending cuts and not adding new taxes or increasing existing taxes. But I am not electable either.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 15, 2010 10:44:40 GMT -5
Just for the record, since I am conservative and all, based on this NYT formula it is possible to get all the way there focusing primarily on entitlement reform & some other small spending cuts and not adding new taxes or increasing existing taxes. But I am not electable either. But you would have to make cuts to the space program! I personally love the space program. Maybe I'll make that my "thing I won't give up no matter how much I think we should spend less" issue. It seems like everyone has at least one.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Nov 15, 2010 10:55:39 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Nov 15, 2010 11:34:16 GMT -5
Probably a good thing you are not running for office. Please note: I am not calling you dumb or anything like that. I am calling you unelectable. ;D I agree 100% with you. For that matter, I think *anybody* who can solve the deficit is officially unelectable. Good thing I have no political ambitions!
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,740
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 15, 2010 11:45:01 GMT -5
Five ways to get the deficit under control:
1. Zero based budgeting. Every budget starts from zero and must be justified--no more "current+ 5%" thinking
2. Two percent cut across the board for all federal departments. Savings: $70.3 billion right there.
3. Reduce Social Security benefits by 1% every other year.
4. Assess a 1% surcharge to personal and corporate federal income taxes identified specific for the deficit.
5. Add a surcharge of 2% on all goods imported from Red China.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 15, 2010 11:54:59 GMT -5
Five ways to get the deficit under control: 1. Zero based budgeting. Every budget starts from zero and must be justified--no more "current+ 5%" thinking 2. Two percent cut across the board for all federal departments. Savings: $70.3 billion right there. 3. Reduce Social Security benefits by 1% every other year. 4. Assess a 1% surcharge to personal and corporate federal income taxes identified specific for the deficit. 5. Add a surcharge of 2% on all goods imported from Red China. I really like the sound of your #1 applied to public schools as well which, in turn, would then require less federal funding. It's amazing the amount of wasted tax dollars.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Nov 15, 2010 12:02:16 GMT -5
5. Add a surcharge of 2% on all goods imported from Red China. Did anyone catch the Brazillian cotton subsidy story on NPR's Planet Money? I know, I know, I said NPR so I can probably rule half the board off from having heard it : www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/11/09/131192182/cottonThis is a suggestion that we don't have the leverage as a country to pull off.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 15, 2010 13:13:24 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/02/AR2010060204228.htmlAs four House members, Democrats Ron Kind (Wis.) and Barney Frank (Mass.) and Republicans Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), put it in a recent letter to the president, the cotton program is "quickly becoming a liability for future trade growth. Instead of effectively reforming our programs, we are electing to pay $147.3 million annually to Brazilian agribusiness so that we can continue to pay around $3 billion a year to large U.S. agribusiness." Of course, the federal government must borrow much of the $147.3 million and the $3 billion. If this sorry episode doesn't shame Washington into ending this fiasco, nothing will.I'm going to put my money on "nothing will." Sadly. However, if there happen to be any cotton farmers on the board who can explain why they can't compete without that subsidy, I'll be happy to hear you out.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 15, 2010 14:47:11 GMT -5
Why is the "why" relevant, Boz? Well, it's bound to be entertaining, don't you think? To quote P.J. O'Rourke: "Farm policy, although it's complex, can be explained. What it can't be is believed. No cheating spouse, no teen with a wrecked family car, no mayor of Washington, DC, videotaped in flagrante delicto has ever come up with anything as farfetched as U.S. farm policy."
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 15, 2010 15:06:22 GMT -5
While the cotton story is indeed distressing, it is only a small part of the overall Farm Bill -- which is somewhere north of $300 Billion over 5 years. Now a lot of that, maybe 2/3, is for food stamps, much of the rest goes directly to farmers. And not to mom and pop farmer, but to very wealthy individuals who own farm land. Why? Because those gigantic states in the middle of the country have the same number of Senators as the more populous States, AND because the same principle applies to the Electoral College for presidential elections, and... as we all know... IOWA holds the first primary/caucuses. Both parties have supported farm subsidies ... forever. This is an ideal budget category to get DFW's ZERO BASED BUDGETING treatment. A few excerpts are from various sites are below. Rep. Collin Peterson, a Minnesota Democrat who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, said he doubts anyone on the panel would push to cut overall spending in the next Farm Bill. It will be a five-year package that includes crop subsidies — primarily for corn, soybeans, cotton, wheat, peanuts and rice — and a range of other programs.
Donald Carr, a spokesman for the Environmental Working Group, said he’s waiting to see whether the election will affect the debate.
“Generally, Republicans have campaigned on less spending and smaller government. So it will be interesting to see if they gain control how they treat large farm operations and wealthy landowners who receive the bulk of lavish farm subsidies and demand more and more every year,” said Carr, whose group tracks subsidies.
Don Koehler, executive director of the Georgia Peanut Commission, said local interests usually count for more than ideology.
“Some of the Georgia folks talk like tea party candidates. … But if you’re from a district that has peanuts you won’t stay in Congress long if you start voting against farm bills or create problems for peanuts,” Koehler said. [/b] dailycaller.com/2010/10/15/election-unlikely-to-change-us-farm-subsidies/#ixzz15NhpcswF---------------------- Agricultural policy in the United States is interventionist, expensive, inequitable, and damaging to American interests abroad. Over the last 20 years, the opportunity cost to American consumers and taxpayers of supporting agricultural producers has totalled over $1.7 trillion. The harm to agricultural producers abroad, including many developing countries, does not help U.S. foreign policy. American intransigence over reducing farm subsidies is a significant impediment to a successful conclusion to the Doha round of world trade talks. It is time for the government to get out of the business of managing agricultural markets and supporting the incomes of farmers, many of whom are relatively well-to-do.www.cato.org/pubs/tpa/tpa-034.pdf------------------ Direct payments, which are one form of commodity subsidy in the bill, are given to farmers without regard to their financial situation. Payments are based on acreage and historical production – but the farmer need not be currently growing anything on the land. www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/in_the_farm_bill_how_much_money.html[/blockquote]
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 15, 2010 15:32:23 GMT -5
Agreed. Democrats and Republicans are both on the hook for US farm policy. And elected officials across the political spectrum should be castigated for it.
I'm pretty sure we had a lengthy discussion about this back when the 2008 Farm Bill was passed (pretty sure I quoted PJ O'Rourke back then too; because I am not at all original).
Funnily enough, I think it was one of the few times we had seen overwhelming agreement among the liberals and conservatives on the board. That bill sucked.
And even though President Bush does deserve some bit of credit for threatening to veto it (a) that threat actually made the bill worse, because basically bribes were put into it to get more Republicans to vote for it*; and (b) it's not as though President Bush was advocating for an all-out overhaul of farm policy. He was primarily focused on levels for capping subsidies, an important point, but not one that would have made it a great bill all of the sudden.
*For those who might be thinking, "Hmmm, I don't remember Glenn Beck or the Tea Party talking about bribes back then like they were during the health care debate," well Glenn Beck was doing that actually, and there were plenty of conservatives railing against it, just no formal Tea Party movement yet. And yes, I will concede that it remains to be seen whether or not the Tea Party politicians and organizers will stay true to the principles they have espoused when cuts are proposed for areas that will hurt them. I have my doubts, of course.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 15, 2010 15:58:08 GMT -5
I think the fact that so many of the common sense fixes for the deficit getting (rightly) blasted as politically impossible belie structural problems in our system of government. Namely, there are too many veto points, and many small groups of people are vastly overrepresented. If a lone Senator from Iowa can hold up anything in the Senate he wishes, well yeah, farm policy isn't going to change.
I think we have to start thinking about structural changes to the government to tackle our great policy problems of the new century. Bemoaning partisanship and hoping for the Broderian Great Centrist Hope (as the press constantly does) ignores the real problem.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 15, 2010 16:13:55 GMT -5
Careful, Bando. You're edging into extremist Tea Party territory there. ;D
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Nov 15, 2010 17:11:21 GMT -5
I think the biggest structural change... really, the only one that would make a difference... is to somehow get money out of the equation for elections. Big money has far too much influence in this country and makes getting things done for the good of the nation extremely difficult. You end up with guys like Congressman Joe Barton apologizing to BP for their voluntary agreement to pay for all the damage they caused... and Joe just happens to be the congressman who has receive THE most money of all 435 from the oil and gas companies.
While he is a prime example, $$ influences things far too much in both parties.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 16, 2010 2:12:36 GMT -5
Careful, Bando. You're edging into extremist Tea Party territory there. ;D I doubt that, as I don't really see any difference between the Tea Parties and conservative Republicans. I mean, people keep saying the Tea Parties are libertarian or something, but as long as they're toasting guys like Sherrif Joe Arapaio, I'm not going to believe it. Besides, the overrepresented people I'm talking about are the rural folk that are the Tea Party's wheelhouse. SirSaxa, I think that's a nice idea, but I'm coming around to the logic of the Citizen's United decision, namely that people who have interests are allowed to express those preferences, and denying so is a violation of the First Amendment. I think things like the DISCLOSE Act are important then, and there's nothing wrong with mandating transparency, in fact it's vital. A structural change I'm talking about is abolishing the Senate (or at least drastically changing its rules), shrinking the number of presidential appointees, instant runoff voting, etc. Rather than hoping politicians will ignore all the incentives toward partisanship, better to match the institutions to those incentives.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Nov 16, 2010 10:06:05 GMT -5
I don't know what everyone is worried about. We're going to get a two-year moratorium on earmarks.
Problem solved. Whew. That was a close one.
(PS - bando, I think you missed my joke)
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 16, 2010 14:15:03 GMT -5
|
|