[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

From the LP website:

OAO, my jest was primarily directed at your title. Really? Out of the hundreds of third-parties in America, only the Libertarian Party website provided a substantive piece of policy....? In other words, before I opened your link, I knew exactly which party it would be....

Given the damage caused by deficits, here's what we should do to start restoring the government to fiscal health:

1) Cut government spending

The "cure" for a deficit is not much different than the cure for obesity, which is: Eat less and exercise more. Translated into fiscal policy, that means: Spend less and exercise more self-restraint.

Politicians don't agree. Republicans say the deficit is caused by a dip in tax revenues and the cost of fighting terrorism. Democrats say the deficit is caused by President Bush's modest tax cuts.

"Modest" tax cuts that don't get real money circulating on the middle income earners are useless if intended to stimulate the economy, but I digress. Three "modest" tax cuts, eh? Don't you think middle-class Americans would rather have social security benefits there for them, or a reasonable health plan, rather than the couple hundred dollars back to buy, what was it, lots of new furniture...? And often, when this link is made for tax payers, they choose the former.

But all whacky Libertarian tax schemes aside, I agree about the part that the government wastes at a high level. I think it's noticeable even in very small, micro levels. I think Congressional representatives need to have certain job entitlements cut, and I do believe our public servants need to regain a little bit of the humility once posessed by those who served in the past.

Even at work, I watch lots of wasted food get thrown out in a Federal government after school snack program at elementary schools. This program exists across the nation, and it wastes a lot every day. This I'm sure is just one example of many.

If politicians need suggestions about what to cut, they could look at the Cato Handbook for Congress, which lists dozens of programs that are ripe for the budget ax.

God bless the Cato Institute. What would we do without them?

The government could move the budget solidly back into surplus territory, notes Cato, by moving Social Security toward a system of individual savings accounts; by privatizing all government-operated businesses, such as Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service; and by selling excess federal land and buildings.

Right, we need to move fast on 1.) Destroying the social security program entirely, 2.) Privatize the U.S. Postal service, a reliable and highly functional institution, and make them UNreliable like many of the privatized shipping companies, and 3.) Selling off federal land that may presumably be preserved, but hey, more land polluting factories and highways ae better than a deficit. :/

Then, to keep the pressure on, the government should "establish a 'sunset' commission to automatically review all federal programs on a rotating basis and propose major reforms and terminations," recommends the Cato Handbook.

I actually really like this idea. I would fear it in practice, however. This would undoubtedly be either an executive office, or a Congessional committee. Either way, it'd be chaired by a hand picked ideologue, who would preserve or axe legislation spending based upon their own ideology and criteria. Essentially, one jackass could cut the spending on a potentially good program, one that btw was voted on by the democratic body in Congress. This seems undemocratic to me.

2) Don't raise taxes.

As the Cato Institute's Veronique de Rugy wrote (March 24, 2003), raising taxes was tried as a method of combatting deficits during the Great Depression, and it failed.

There was no money to tax....?

Faced with a growing deficit, presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt boosted the top income tax rate from 25% to 79%, and corporate taxes from 12% to 25%. They also imposed a new dividends tax, a liquor tax, and a Social Security payroll tax.

The result: The deficit jumped from $2.2 billion in 1932 to $2.9 billion in 1940, wrote de Rugy.

I think cutting payroll taxes on middle-income, hard working Americans, as well as lower-income HARD WORKING Americans, would be a great idea. I think it's also about time we shifted the tax burden back where it belongs, much like FDR did. The corporations carried almost 50% of the tax burden in the 1950s, double that of which FDR put in place. There was no great depression, there was no economic melt down until Vietnam, and the 50s were generally considered are best decade for broad economic stability on all class levels.

3) Pass a strict balanced-budget Constitutional amendment.

* That neither Congress nor the president be permitted to override this requirement.

* That all off-budget items are included in the budget.

You like actually having a budget within a reasonable amount of time, right? If all budget expenses were mandated on the budget, there would never BE a conclusive budget. You can't cement all of your budget and have no discretionary spending cash. That would be just plain naive.

* That the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

Again, this Grover Norquist kind of argument makes me question the sanity of Libertarians, and other anti-government radicals. Is having a balanced budget a means to an end, or is it merely the end...? Is the whole point in this that we must have balanced budgets because it shows good moral character...? Maybe the argument is ANYTHING that shrinks the government, anything at all, is a good thing....? Does this seem like a mature, or even a rational argument to you, OAO....?

* That no exception be made for periods of national emergency.

DING DING DING!! WE HAVE SPOTTED WHACK JOBS, WE HAVE SPOTTED THE WHACK JOBS!!!

Wouldn't this kind of be like your left hand cutting off your right hand, and then telling the right hand "sorry bud! You GOT your $10!!"

I realize that to looney tune Ayn Rand worshipers, the Great Depression gave that rotten Commie FDR the chance the put his socialist agenda in place. THAT is who this clause is directed at, but what about events such as 9/11....? Heck, what about the money Bush wants for Iraq right now...? Should another terrorist attack go down, should our leaders have no grounds to use extra cash to fight or mend the problem...?

Of course, the drawback of a Constitutional amendment is that politicians may simply find ways to evade it, no matter what restrictions are written into it.

Cheating is something politicians are good at. Over the past decade, to evade self-imposed spending caps, Washington, DC politicians pioneered a number of innovative bookkeeping techniques that would have landed them in jail had they worked for a private company.

Yeah, kind of like how our top 1% wage earners have found cute ways to evade our tax policies, thus depriving the government, thus adding to the need to push the burden upon the middle-class. They're pretty good at cheating too, but I'll bet the Cato Institute would applaud their creativity. :/

In a way, the deficit is the byproduct of a politically schizophrenic American public that is anti-tax but pro-spending.

Very solid point.

In other words, most Americans don't want their federal taxes to go up, but they do want to keep receiving federal checks for Medicare, Social Security, college loans, farm subsidies, and so on.

yes....I'm with ya.....

Politicians, eager to please, promise more government programs and benefits, while vowing not to raise taxes. They plunge the government into debt so they can keep handing out goodies.

OH! WE WERE SO CLOSE TO AGREEMENT! What "goodies" are being handed out? The tiny scraps in ss that have forced many of our elderly Americans to return to the p/t job market...? Maybe you mean the national health care system we don't have...? Please, SHOW ME THE GOODIES!

And GOD FORBID politicians be eager to please their voters.

One example: The $400 billion prescription drug benefit President Bush has promised seniors will be paid for with deficit spending. Although Grandma and Grandpa may not admit it (even to themselves), this means their children and grandchildren will be forced to pick up the tab for their high blood-pressure medication.

And when their children reach that age, they'll want the same cheap blood-pressure medication, and ya know what? GOOD! I'm tired of this bullshit Randist argument that we are beholden only to ourselves. LET my tax dollars go to help the elderly. Believe me, it doesn't do much! (this is coming from someone raised in a family of elerly healthcare providers).

That almost irresistible temptation to spend today -- and let someone else pay tomorrow -- may be why Thomas Jefferson once wrote that public debt is "the greatest of dangers to be feared."

And what would my boy Tommy's solution be?? Didn't he envision a small, decentralized, DIY, agrarian-based society...? Now who's the loopy Anarchist, OAO...?

A balanced budget would, at the very least, herald a return to fiscal honesty, would stop boosting the cost of government with exorbitant interest payments, and would stop shifting the cost of today's spending onto tomorrow's taxpayers.

The interst payments concern is a valid point (the only one). The government shouldn't be shifting the interest costs of a meager s.s. system onto hard working Americans. They should however recover the tax burden to where it belongs, to those who have the money.

BTW: According to the LP website, the Libertarian Party is the third largest in America. It boasts that they hold 595 offices -more than twice as many as all other third parties combined.

Yeah, and as we discussed last time, most of those positions are patronage spots and appointments, not to mention the untold amount of non-partisan races in local communities. Take away those numbers, and then lets see their standing....