...but how do you suppose we should stop it?
And forget spending. Deficit spending is sky high, but the national debt is far worse.
Reagan tripled the national debt.
Bush Sr. nearly doubled it.
Clinton increased it by a third.
Bush Jr. doublted it.
Meanwhile everyone wants their little pet projects for their own congressional district, and everyone wants tax cuts too.
So how long can this be sustainable?
Shouldn't we be pushing for the opposite of what we've been doing? Like cutting spending and increasing taxes?
It's like giving a drug addict more heroin and telling him to kick the habit at the same time.
Snow, this really is a yes and no. During the Clinton administration taxes went up on the wealthy (28% to 39.5% income tax), and there was some cutting of the federal budget (like Defense, for example). During Bush's administration, taxes did go down, but spending increased.
So that's the no (or the inverse I suppose). Sort of like a heroin habit that gets worse by cutting the flow of junk.
but the yes, is that in general, the gov't very much acts like a drug addict in need of heroin. So many parts of the gov't is precisely like this.
Taxes is a bi-product of the problem not the cause. The real issue why there is so much spending is because there is so much government.
Simple solution is to make a constitutional admendment that requires a balanced budget, with the exception times of war or national emergency, both of which would require approval from Congress and the President.
This whole problem is caused because the Progressive movement ignored the Constitution and created government agencies that where not within the powers given to the Federal Government by the COnstition. See link of Article 1 Section 8. The rest where left with states to protect thier soverignty. Less we forget we are still a Nation of "United" states. The inclusion of this was because functions of federal government that did not fall under the constution nmot only could be better adminsterd by the state, but also prevented the Fed government from obtaining to much power and influence over our lives. (Anything sound familiar yet).
We need to eliminate sunch agencies. Take the Dep. of Education. Educational standard continue to either slide or at the least not improve at the same rate of increased federal spending. States have give up much of the control of education in there states for federal funding simply because the FED has the ability to raise or borrow funds easier or with less consequences of debt.
The same can be said about many facets of government. States gave up rights for Federal money and the Fed Giv just kept taxing, borrowing and printed to keep the power grab up.
Now with all this moneu flying around, it has made Congresional delegates much more powerful than thier state counter parts. Politicians also learrned that they could take the rights of the people as well if you pay them off to. Fortunately groups like Labor Unions and Community Orgs (like Acorn) nicely assemble people together to make this exchange easy and mutually benificial for the group and the delegate.
It all comes down to massive amount of money the Fed Giverment has to dole out. Take that away, and you minimize the powers of elected delagates to trade pet projects for donations. That brings back some integrity and honesty to the process.
You tie in campaign reform and term limits with the process of decreasing the size of the federal government, you won't need tax increases, and likely be able to reduce them drastically over time.
Some of that may be converted to state taxes, but now states are in competion for people to like work and set up indudtry. The states the run better will have more success getting people to come. States that don't will have to change or fail.
I think you're viewing Article 1, Section 8 with the view that these are powers Congress is limited to.
The interstate commerence clause (which is among these powers) does give wide reaching power to Congress (or so the courts have said), but I think that power is backed up further by the 9th amendment.
That's where the debate comes it, what was the intention oif the writers od the Constitution.
It's tough to argue that those at the Constitutional Convention had any intention fo creating a Central Government with this much power. It is exactly what they fought a war to get out of.
The sole principle of the Constitution was not only to set up a central Government to unify the states as one nation, but to also protect each states soverignty.
The problem is that not only has both parties become for progressive, so have the courts, including the Supreme Court. They are after all apointed and confirmed by the President and COngress who select members who would support such progressive agenda's.
that is where the debate comes in. I wonder if it's a good idea to stick with the original intentions of the Founders anyway, given how much the world has changed. Are we shackling ourselves to the ideas of the past? I dunno.
I damn sure think that our current situation and path we seemed running down is not conducive to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that was envisioned or even desireable by most working folks.
Problem we have is that the founders and society at large were all hard working and seemingly fair with one another.. or so a lot of historical records seem to suggest. And there was an assumption that folks were reasonably educated in current affairs..
Today, there are so many "voting" folks all looking for a free ride, politicians are all to happy to give out the handouts in exchange for the votes... Couple that with lazy working folks who don't vote, and you end up with elected officials ushered in by those who want the handouts.
Many people feel the same, that things where so different 250 years ago that those principles don't apply today. Political Science is in fact a science, and like other sciences is guided by laws and principles that are true today as they where 250 or 2000 years ago.
When this principles of government where put in place, it was based off of centuries of failed and successful concepts of other governments. Let's not forget that the US is a Republic based of that of the Roman Empire.
One of the things that some of the Founders debated was what to do with "monied corporations". The Founders didn't think too highly of the concept of the corporation, given all that trouble they had with the East India Company in Boston.
Jefferson actually argued that the Bill of Rights should have a total ban on monopolies. Ultimately, Jefferson lost that fight, as it was reasoned that since each state gives it's own charter to a company, then the several states would be able to hold them in check.
Well, today corporations are international entities, some with revenues exceeding that of nation-states. And with that extra power, states no longer hold any reins on them, and haven't really done so since the Supreme Court ruled on Santa Clara Co. vs Southern Pacific Railroad back in the 1880's.
Those instances of trade across state lines and dealing with foriegn entities are rights the states gave to the Fed to regulate and govern under article 1 sect 8. And precisely why it was there.
International trade was very prevelant at the time of the constitution. And was only believed to be more prevalent and important as the country grew.
Unfortunately those rights for the Fed have been used to take control over functions never intended under those statues.
You picked the exact example when they should and do apply.
Should have spend a lot more. Would have come out of the recession by now. The countries that did are coming out.
to get out of the recession, but that would be to offset bad economic policies that are already in place. It would save a lot of money if we fixed those policies first before we began spending.
Explanation has to be something other than high taxes and spending.
Both are negated due to the current economic condition. Supply side just doesn't work. It only works to make rich more rich.
I am all for financial industry regulation, taxing bonuses of all corporate crooks at the wind fall tax rate and completely in support of giving businesses investment tax credits for investing in the business and R&D.
As far as I know, Wall Street does not produce one iota of goods or services on their own or contribute to economy directly. They contribute indirectly by moving other peoples money around like drunken gamblers while sucking average workers blood.
It is pathetic and pitiful to hear these multi-million dollar exec's complaining indicating that they can't figure out a way to run their businesses profitably with taxes and regulation. Fire all of them.
I support in recovering 120% of TARP money from financial institutions. They can complain about paying for Auto Companies all they want. My answer to that they put the Auto companies and rest of us in this spot and should be made to pay.