Recently we have heard a ton of criticism of earmartks and those who propose them. I just read this factoid:

This year congress spent $16.5 billion on earmarks. That is less than 1/2 of one percent of all federal spending. If all earmarks passed in the last 20 years were added together the national debt would be reduced by roughly 2 percent.

The simple fact is we will need massive program cuts, massive new taxes or a combination of both to balance our budget. Do any of you really believe either party will be willing to have the political courage to seriously tackle the problem?

I'm told there is an online game that lets you make cuts and raise taxes to balance the budget. I'm also told its damn tough to do. Does anyone have a link to that game?

From what I have heard for here in WA, the budget mess can't be solved with cuts alone. It will be really interesting to see if the various initiatives pass the will get rid of the taxes, reinstate the 2/3 majority thing, and have the Repubs lead both houses of the Leg. Then, will the Dems play Party of NO or actually try to govern as they were elected to do?

The whole party of no is a joke when both the house and senate are controlled by dems, then obviously the president. Filibuster proof majority, then we hear tge excuse that the Republicans stopped the push for reforms, tax cuts, etc. What a bunch of liars.

This notion that is hard to make cuts is kind of dishonest. The government spends money, then says they can't afford to cut. Do we go out and buy a car, then try to cut our own budget? How about they repeal some spending laws? In Oregon it's law that 1% of the state budget must be spent on art. Sure 1% isn't much, but when it equals Just over 200 million a year, that could pay for a lot of cops, teachers, fish etc. These idiots just go for the hard hits, threatening throwing grandma to the curb, instead of controlling spending.

You can't "buy" happiness, love, nor fish.

Sure the governent spends money. Here in WA you have education (k-12) which is constitutionally mandated as the state's #1 priority. You have prisons, you have the State Patrol.

You can nickle and dime the earmarks, the 1% for art, etc. but it is not going to get there.

WA has not funded some of the retirement plans as they were supposed to. So, instead of putting a dollar in and letting it grow they now need to put in 3 to meet a mandated program.

Not saying that the majority party was any great shakes either but until theyy work together it ain't gonna work well.

Lay off the booze goat fuker!

There is a saying that I truly believe in, "if you are dishonest in the small things it won't be long before you become dishonest in the larger things".

If you are willing to waste a little bit of money then why should I trust you not to waste a lot of money. Afterall, it is pretty common knowledge that earmarks are used as leverage to get other politicians to do things, that if not for the earmarks, they would not otherwise do. It is a small amount of money, but it is symptomatic of the culture that exits in D.C.

No, I don't believe our politicians from either side of the aisle will do anything significant to reduce the debt, and quite frankly I wouldn't put it at the top of the priority list and it's signifcance just makes for good campaign talk and a diversion from the more pressing problems in this country like record high unemployment, health care, and the housing market. Unless something is done in those three areas, talk about reducing the debt, is just that, talk. Get this economy back on track even if it means spending a lot more of our tax money is priority one right now, IMHO of course.

Earmarks should be stand alone legislation, not tacked onto other bills.

But they would never pass then. What are you trying to do, stop waste?

M@NB -- Totally valid, and provokes thought for sure.

On the reverse -- imagine the government spending in a more personal/analogous way. Let's presume it's your home/annual budget. You have rent/mortgage, food, car/insurance, etc... You also have some small 'personal' stuff -- gift giving, buying a starbucks instead of brewing at home (obviously cheaper), and an occasional dinner out.

Perhaps the sum of your annual expenses are $40K... Of which $400 in the year goes to this "personal" stuff... Now you decide you need to cut spending, by 25%... Or $10,000 in the year...

The personal stuff is important symbolically--but it's not remotely going to get you on budget... and until someone (from EITHER f'n party) presents a credible plan for the $9600 OTHER dollars, then making a big deal about how you're cutting back on Starbucks doesn't impress me.

Federally, you have to go after defense spending, social security and medicare if you are serious. Everything else is just coffeehouse crap.

Yes, I know. In my party, when I say "Lets take our country back" this is precisely WHO I want to take it back from. I also recognize it will negatively impact a huge number of jobs. But you can't "cut" 25% of our national budget without some very difficult and unpopular choices.

When and if a legitimate "conservative" party ever re-emerges, and they start talking sense about these issues, I'll support them. In the mean time, I'm a man without a party.

AM,

I haven't studied SS in detail, but I think you have to look at the retirement age (perhaps pegging that to the ever extending life expectancies?) and also scaling back benefits based on need.

Medicare is an issue I'm too ignorant about to know where to start. But clearly we have to have serious people looking at this.

Lots of good things here. Go back and read how SS was sold. One of FDR's cabinet called it widows ins., as when men dropped dead women and children were left without a means of support. ( women did not work outside the hm much then )

It evolved into a secondary retirement with good intentions but little thought, in fact benefits are described as a x mas tree by some historians. As to need that was never a driver as to benefits, nor the purpose as it was aimed at individuals and not income redistribution. The cap has allowed upper income to not pay the tax on their entire income. Benefits to those who pay little in and qualify for minimum are a bit of a reach. ( illegals love that one ) Then the biggy...........SS is a Ponzi scream of sorts. It is dependant on you not living past stats average, that more will be paying to maintain those on the rolls, and oh yes if you die early on everything paid in by you and your employer is lost to your family ( mostly ).

It is a necessary thing SS is, but long past being represented honestly by government as to cost, priorities, and intent.

based on need?? So as it stands right now SS will pay me $2100 amonth and my Millmens retirement will pay me approx $2500 at 65. Who will determine what my "need" is?

Rather than increasing the age of SS, you might want to consider imposing SS limits on federally derived retirements.


That was done years ago. Google Hatch Act SS Retirement

Means testing won't fly because it's hard, or it's politically intractable?

You could test income (investment, or otherwise), as an example. Is that intractable? If politically so, then tough cookies, these cuts are necessary, we're not making this stuff up.

You could also REWARD people publicly for deferring their payments... Perhaps provide some benefit to a future generation/estate for people who opt out.

I'm not remotely pretending to be a wonk on these issues. I only see people unwilling to touch the "3rd rail" and I am desperately searching for brave candidates to support with my vote.

I.R. You have identified the problem. Recently Rossi refused to answer three separate questions asking what programs you would cut. (Not to pick on Dino, I don’t know any other politician willing to list their [proposed cuts. I picked him because cutting the deficit is the centerpiece of his campaign.) He knows that cutting SS will cost him an election. Cutting military significantly, ditto.

We need leaders who will lead such as we recent saw in, England and France. Till we get some true leaders we will continue to increase the deficit.

Another pipe dream, everyone dreams about goring someone else’s Ox but in practical application they could never get elected and then redetected or gain enough bi partisan support to pull it off. The bulk of the budget is made up of entitlements and no one has the sack or the support to touch them. The only soultion is to try and cap them and raise taxes or toss people to the wolves.

That makes it an easy decision to just toss people to the wolves then, doesn't it?

Sg

That has been the way of politics since ................... hell the beginning. The removal of responsibility for ones own actions under the pretense of the good for all is a ongoing thing. It gathers in votes but fails to solve the problem as the human condition can not be a pain free environment and efforts to create such a system will fail for the same reasons Marxism failed................ human nature. All humans can be afforded the same rights but never will they have the same abilities.

Human abilities and intelligence are not uniformly distributed resulting the uneven abilities to produce wealth, however wealth is defined. Secondly humans are very GREEDY and contrary to popular belief, they do not share well. We evolved from hunter / gathers and those who succeeded at getting food survived, those who failed perished. It is the human way.................. it is called, with humor in mind, the law of the jungle.

One assumes mankind will move forward but it is slow going. Technology and the inability of governments to control information has dramatically speeded up things but if history is a guide we are two or three generations from that time. Assuming we don't wipe out the planet first.