State of The Union

2011-Week 51

General discussion thread for Week 51 of 2011.

Open Thread

Never Forget

One
by Cheryl Sawyer

As the soot and dirt and ash rained down,

We became one color.

As we carried each other down the stairs of the burning building

We became one class.

As we lit candles of waiting and hope

We became one generation.

As the firefighters and police officers fought their way into the inferno

We became one gender.

As we fell to our knees in prayer for strength,

We became one faith.

As we whispered or shouted words of encouragement,

We spoke one language.

As we gave our blood in lines a mile long,

We became one body.

As we mourned together the great loss

We became one family.

As we cried tears of grief and loss

We became one soul.

As we retell with pride of the sacrifice of heros

We become one people.

We are

One color

One class

One generation

One gender

One faith

One language

One body

One family

One soul

One people

We are The Power of One.

We are United.

We are America.

———

Cheryl Sawyer is a professor at UH Clear Lake in the counseling department.

911 Memorial

911 Archive

Exploring Ground Zero, Ten Years Later

Is it Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment?

One of several provisions of a debt ceiling agreement floated by Republicans is that both houses of Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) resolution. Not a new idea – all states but Vermont currently have balanced budget requirements. Germany and Switzerland both have balanced budget provisions in their constitutions. In a letter to John Taylor of Caroline on November 26, 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas.”

Since 1975, 32 states have petitioned Congress to consider a BBA. Should two additional states issue similar petitions, some contend Congress would then be required to call a Constitutional Convention, in accordance with Article 5 of the US Constitution, to consider the BBA.

There is currently a joint resolution in Congress to pass a BBA.

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

Article

Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year may not exceed 20 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 20 percent by a rollcall vote.

Section 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

Section 4. No bill to increase Federal taxes shall become law unless approved by two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a rollcall vote.

Section 5. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress, which becomes law.

Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product.

Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the fourth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.

There have been discussions of changes to the supermajority requirements, from two thirds to three quarters, as well as whether 20% of GDP is the appropriate limit. Amendments have also been proposed requiring state ratification of all increases to the debt ceiling, which would be intended to supplement rather than replace the BBA and would be of little effect if the BBA were properly enforced – a belt and suspenders approach.

Criticism of a BBA largely centers around the Keynesian argument that deficit spending is necessary in times of recession, though this particular argument seems to be dulled if not entirely refuted by recent attempts to dampen the recession with historic annual deficits. Given the clear propensity for members of the Executive and Legislative branches, including many who claim to fly the flag of fiscal conservatism, to consider prior year spending as the budget baseline, expecting a change to that approach absent a Constitutional requirement seems unrealistic at best.

With current debt exceeding $14 trillion, any agreement to allow an increase should come with passage of the joint resolution. The President is right……..enough is enough.

http://bbanow.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment

Is It Time For A Balanced Budget Amendment?

One of several provisions of a debt ceiling agreement floated by Republicans is that both houses of Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) resolution.  Not a new idea - all states but Vermont currently have balanced budget requirements.  Germany and Switzerland both have balanced budget provisions in their constitutions.  In a letter to John Taylor of Caroline on November 26, 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote: 

“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government; I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. I now deny their power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender. I know that to pay all proper expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us. But not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend their credit in borrowing quotas.”

Since 1975, 32 states have petitioned Congress to consider a BBA.  Should two additional states issue similar petitions, some contend Congress would then be required to call a Constitutional Convention, in accordance with Article 5 of the US Constitution, to consider the BBA. 

There is currently a joint resolution in Congress to pass a BBA.  

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

Article

Section 1.  Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year may not exceed 20 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 20 percent by a rollcall vote. 

Section 3.  Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts. 

Section 4.  No bill to increase Federal taxes shall become law unless approved by two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress by a rollcall vote. 

Section 5.  The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress, which becomes law. 

Section 6.  The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays, receipts, and gross domestic product. 

Section 7.  Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal. 

Section 8.  This article shall take effect beginning with the fourth fiscal year beginning after its ratification. 

There have been discussions of changes to the supermajority requirements, from two thirds to three quarters, as well as whether 20% of GDP is the appropriate limit.  Amendments have also been proposed requiring state ratification of all increases to the debt ceiling, which would be intended to supplement rather than replace the BBA and would be of little effect if the BBA were properly enforced – a belt and suspenders approach.

Criticism of a BBA largely centers around the Keynesian argument that deficit spending is necessary in times of recession, though this particular argument seems to be dulled if not entirely refuted by recent attempts to dampen the recession with historic annual deficits.  Given the clear propensity for members of the Executive and Legislative branches, including many who claim to fly the flag of fiscal conservatism, to consider prior year spending as the budget baseline, expecting a change to that approach absent a Constitutional requirement seems unrealistic at best.   

With current debt exceeding $14 trillion, any agreement to allow an increase should come with passage of the joint resolution.  The President is right……..enough is enough. 

http://bbanow.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_Budget_Amendment

A Memorial Day Tribute

Thank you to Jim Nagle for this wonderful tribute, and thank you to R1 for forwarding it. Nothing more need be said.

Happy Memorial Day

Link

Government Which Governs Least

I’d like to try something a little different. I’ve tried to research material to address different aspects of the political environment that are starting to become factors in the world in which we find ourselves today. I did one article regarding the healthcare issue, where I probably included too much personal information. I wanted to attempt to put together an article that gets us refocused on the purpose of the site, and that is COMMON GROUND!

The one thing that sticks with me the most about the posters on this site is that you are all passionate in your beliefs. Unlike so many sites in this anonymous world called the internet, we have actually been able to forge friendships, however fragile they may be at times. For those of us who have been fortunate enough to meet in person, from what I’ve heard on all accounts each and every one of these meetings has reinforced opinions that folks here are rock solid! This is quite a remarkable feat no matter how you look at it. Sadly, sometimes I think we lose sight of that simple fact in our discussions. So what I’d like to do with this article is to take my personal observations of our discussions and see if we have more in common than we have differences. I know we all realize that there are some major problems that we face together - where the disagreements come is in the solutions. Here are my simple observations.

The first issue that we have is our differences of opinion on the role of government in our lives. Some feel the federal government should be the dominant factor, others believe the states should be. If you look at it strictly in terms of our Constitution, the sederal role is to be limited and the states are to be dominant. I don’t think that anybody can really argue the opposite honestly. Everybody realizes that government is a necessary evil in our lives, simply because without it we would be living in anarchy and nobody wants that (except anarchists). The real question is how do we get back to a proper balance and still benefit the entire country, not just certain segments.

We’ve all heard the phrase “government which governs least governs best”, and there is a reason that rings true. It places the individual in charge of doing the “right thing”, even though there is little oversight. When I go bowling on league nights, I drive on rural roads, with stop signs and stop lights. I come to a complete stop when I get to a stop sign, and I wait for the light to change even if there is no traffic. Why do I do this? Quite simply because it is the law, it’s part of the rules we live by. I don’t think there is anything unique about me in this respect, I think most people are capable and willing to do the same thing for the same reason. There is a trust, a bond if you will between government and the citizenry to obey the law even when nobody is watching. Somewhere along the line, that trust has been lost in both directions of governance. I suggest the following for your consideration.

Due to the nature of our budget difficulties hitting us at the federal, state and local levels, the elimination of all unfunded mandates should be discontinued, for one simple reason. If legislation is so important that it needs to be passed, it should be fully funded by the level of government passing the legislation. It’s easy to spend other people’s money when there are no consequences. Try having something forced on you in your own personal life by any entity and you’ll take issue with it. This simple step could remove a huge burden from every level of government other than local. That’s the way this system of ours was designed to operate.

The second step of this process would be to eliminate duplication in the various federal agencies involved in so many aspects of our everyday activities. We really don’t have to look too far back in history to find an example of how this interferes with a reasonable and timely response to a problem.  I give you as an example the Gulf oil spill. There were numerous stories about how the various federal agencies each had their own specific spans of control. Because of all the layers of government involved, steps that could have been implemented quickly to minimize damage were delayed simply due to layers of bureaucracy. It slowed our response considerably. Why have seven different agencies involved in the decision-making process in this emergency? If your house was on fire, would you want to have to get the okay from seven different people before the fire trucks were dispatched? This is the easiest example to use, and it’s rampant in every layer of government.

Once that duplication has been eliminated, we then can focus on what the federal government should be involved with, and this is where it all gets very tricky. There is an argument to be made that some standards need to be applied across the entire country, and in some instances I agree that it is necessary. For this example I will use the Department of Education. I firmly agree there should be a basic set of educational standards, but none of them should involve diversity training, sex education or self-esteem classes. Those are not issues that should fall into the realm of government at any level, in my not so humble opinion, but rather to the parents. What purpose does it serve the citizenry for a child to feel good about herself when she can’t even read the diploma she is handed? At some point we have to get back to parental responsibility. Many of us were born and raised before the Department of Education was created in 1977. Think of how much has changed in the US during the subsequent three decades. It’s mind-boggling when you take the time to contemplate that. As a small aside, the Energy Department was created at the time to make us energy independent. Anybody honestly think it’s even gotten close to that goal?

These are all things we have discussed here, time and again. When you take the time to stop and ponder just these simple steps, do you understand the amount of money these simple steps would save? State and local governments could implement the same principles, and the savings would be compounded further. A profound attitude change would occur from both the perspective of the taxpayer toward the government, and vice versa. It’s all quite simple when you think about it.  Most taxpayers don’t mind paying taxes, and they really don’t mind government. Where the real conflict arises is when the taxpayers don’t think they are getting their money’s worth out of THEIR investment. Government doesn’t invest in infrastructure and schools, taxpayers do.

Open Letter to House Republicans

Congressmen,

It is more than a bit distressing that I feel the need to communicate on this topic barely two months into the 112th Congress, but it would seem that Congress is not yet terribly serious about deficit reduction.  One would think the message sent in November couldn’t have been more clear, but it would appear it has either already been forgotten, or has somehow become garbled since the election.

I fully understand that the Republicans only hold a majority in the House and as such getting budget cuts through the Senate and the Oval Office represent a significant challenge.  In my opinion, President Obama has shown zero leadership in this regard, with his proposed $6.5 billion in cuts against a seriously inflated baseline.  It would appear that once again he has abdicated his leadership role to the House. 

However, now that the Republican party is in control of the House there is an opportunity to demonstrate that you are serious about reducing spending and the deficit, about reducing the size and intrusiveness of the Federal government.  This was a major part of the Republican platform in 2010 and was a major reason for the historic turnover in the House of Representatives, in many cases with freshman members intent on executing on that platform.  Yet now I find that execution to be sorely lacking, not because those freshmen have lost interest or become less vocal, but because House leadership apparently doesn’t have a willingness to make the more difficult political decisions.  $61 billion is barely a down payment on the level of spending reductions we need to see at the Federal level and doesn’t even touch the entitlements that nearly everyone acknowledges are the biggest fiscal challenge we face as a country.  The GAO report issued last week provided a map to $100-200 billion of low hanging fruit.  The Deficit Recution Commission report was barely acknowledged by the President and both houses of Congress, despite bipartisan support but with a pathetic shortage of votes.  Our federal deficit in the month of February alone was more than four times the House proposal.  I expect a stronger commitment from the party that wants to lay claim to fiscal responsibility.

There is little doubt that neither the House proposal nor that of the President will get through the Senate, and I do understand that ultimately a resolution or bill needs to be negotiated that will receive more than lip service from President Obama.  But in my view, if the President and the Democrats in Congress aren’t serious about getting our fiscal house in order, the Republicans need to at least demonstrate that they are.  If that message continues to be sent, it will be up to the Democrats to join you in the effort or shut down Washington.  I urge you to support stronger budget proposals for both the balance of this fiscal year and the 2012 year, as well as bills that will deal, once and for all, with the mess that is Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and, now, Obamacare.  I would hope the fiscal future of our country is worth the potential cost in political capital.

Obamacare, Round 2?

Yesterday Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana and possible contender for the GOP 2012 Presidential nomination, along with 20 other Republican Governors, sent the following letter:

The Honorable Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20201

Dear Secretary Sebelius;

Many of us believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should be repealed by Congress if the courts do not strike it down first.

But, with no assurance of either outcome, we face the decision of whether to participate in the bill by operating state exchanges, or to let the federal government take on that task, if the bill remains in effect in 2014.

In addition to its constitutional infringements, we believe the system proposed by the PPACA is seriously flawed, favors dependency over personal responsibility, and will ultimately destroy the private insurance market.

Because of this, we do not wish to be the federal government’s agents in this policy in its present form.

We wish states had been given more opportunity to provide input when the PPACA was being drafted. We believe in its current form the law will force our health care system down a path sure to lead to higher costs and the disruption or discontinuation of millions of American’s insurance plans.

Though we still have grave concerns with other provisions of the PPACA, we suggest the following improvements:

• Provide states with complete flexibility on operating the exchange, most importantly the freedom to decide which licensed insurers are permitted to offer their products

• Waive the bill’s costly mandates and grant states the authority to choose benefit rules that meet the specific needs of their citizens.

• Waive the provisions that discriminate against consumer-driven health plans, such as health savings accounts (HSA’s)

• Provide blanket discretion to individual states if they chose to move non-disabled Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchanges for their insurance coverage without the need of further HHS approval.

• Deliver a comprehensive plan for verifying incomes and subsidy amounts for exchange participants that is not an unfunded mandate but rather fully funded by the federal government and is certified as workable by an independent auditor.

• Commission a new and objective assessment of how many people will end up in the exchanges and on Medicaid in every state as a result of the legislation (including those “offloaded” by employers), and at what potential cost to state governments. The study must be conducted by a neutral third-party research organization agreed to by the states represented in this letter.

We hope the Administration will accommodate our states’ individual circumstances and needs, as we believe the PPACA in its current form threatens to destroy our budgets and perpetuate and magnify the most costly aspects of our health care system.

While we hope for your endorsement, if you do not agree, we will move forward with our own efforts regardless and HHS should begin making plans to run exchanges under its own auspices.

Sincerely,

Governor Robert J. Bentley
Alabama

Governor Nathan Deal
Georgia

Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter
Idaho

Governor Mitch Daniels
Indiana

Governor Terry E. Branstad
Iowa

Governor Sam Brownback
Kansas

Governor Bobby Jindal
Louisiana

Governor Paul R. LePage
Maine

Governor Haley Barbour
Mississippi

Governor David Heineman
Nebraska

Governor Brian Sandoval
Nevada

Governor Susana Martinez
New Mexico

Governor John R. Kasich
Ohio

Governor Mary Fallin
Oklahoma

Governor Tom Corbett
Pennsylvania

Governor Nikki Haley
South Carolina

Governor Dennis Daugaard
South Dakota

Governor Bill Haslam
Tennessee

Governor Rick Perry
Texas

Governor Gary R. Herbert
Utah

Governor Scott Walker
Wisconsin

Governor Daniels also penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal describing in more detail the fiscal dilemma the PPACA places on states, stating, in part:

“…the law expects to conscript the states as its agents in its takeover of health care. It assumes that we will set up and operate its new insurance “exchanges” for it, using our current welfare apparatuses to do the numbingly complex work of figuring out who is eligible for its subsidies, how much each person or family is eligible for, redetermining this eligibility regularly, and more. Then, we are supposed to oversee all the insurance plans in the exchanges for compliance with Washington’s dictates about terms and prices.”

In addition to the various and sundry lawsuits filed by state Attorney’s General, two of which have been decided in favor of the states (the recent Florida ruling involving 26 of our 50 states), two of which have been decided in favor of the Federal government, and all of which have been appealed and will likely end up in the Supreme court; in addition to a handful of states like Missouri passing legislation rejecting participation in some or all of the provisions of Obamacare, we now have 21 states recommending specific improvements to the legislation.  If the November 2010 elections did not send a message to Washington regarding public rejection of the PPACA and a desire for replacement of that heavy-handed legislation with something which deals with the real cost issues in our health care system, more recent events and the number of states involved should be getting their attention.  As Governor Daniels states in reference to the recommendations made to Secretary Sebelius:

“Most fundamentally, the system we are proposing requires Washington to abandon most of the command-and-control aspects of the law as written. It steers away from nanny-state paternalism by assuming, recognizing and reinforcing the dignity of all our citizens and their right to make health care’s highly personal decisions for themselves. ”

It seems the Obama administration has a number of options available at this point:

• allow the various lawsuits to play out in the courts according to the routine appeals process, which could well move any Supreme Court action into the 2012 election season
• push for an accelerated appeals process, which could move the decision into the high court within the next few months
• consider recommendations made by the governors, as well as amending legislation being developed by both House and Senate Republicans designed to remove the more onerous provisions of Obamacare and enhance cost reform efforts
• support an outright repeal and rewrite of the legislation, which appears to be the option favored by most Americans.

An accelerated court solution could be the most expeditious route, but would also involve the greatest political risk to the administration, as a Supreme Court opinion in support of the Vinson ruling would invalidate the PPACA in its entirety.  On the other hand, a legislative solution that returns power and authority to the states, while quite possibly the solution most Americans would prefer – elected officials working together to arrive at a truly bipartisan answer, would likely extend the ongoing health care and insurance debate into the 2012 election season and quite possibly beyond, setting up a race to the finish line between the legislative and judicial branches.  Could the governors’ recommendations help to bring about an end to the debate, or only add fuel to the fire? 

“If there’s to be a train wreck, we governors would rather be spectators than conductors. But if the federal government is willing to reroute the train to a different, more productive track, we are here to help.”

Virginia Ruling - Moon 

Michigan Ruling

Virginia Ruling - Hudson

Florida Ruling

 

It’s The Spending, Stupid!

There is a quote that keeps being repeated on this board which seems to miss the point being made by the voters in the 2010 midterm elections, that as Alan Greenspan has commented, “Spending has become untouchable” [1]. Perhaps to the politicians it has, but to the population as a whole, perhaps not so much. The only question I have is whether or not the public actually realizes how deeply the federal government is involved in the everyday funding of the United States economy. This isn’t something that just came into being during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama (hmm, hmm, hmm) (sorry, couldn’t resist the urge), but it has certainly taken a leap forward. It’s no longer a question of whether spending needs to be curbed, it’s a question of how much and how fast. It’s a dilemma decades in the making, and one which would have Solomon awakening in cold sweats! Let me provide a small step toward a solution.

First, we need to have a true understanding of the problem we are facing. In 2000, the Federal deficit stood at almost 5.7 TRILLION dollars, a staggering amount [2]. However, as the link shows, it has increased at a staggering pace over the last decade. I would suggest that the cost of two wars and an extravagant prescription drug entitlement (among other things) during the Bush Presidency had much to do with the increase (and I’m NOT making an excuse for this). Many conservatives have caught Holy Hell for saying that Bush wasn’t a conservative. He WASN’T a conservative; he was cut from the same cloth as his father. As Texas as Bush Junior wished to portray himself, he was more a product of the upper east coast upbringing he received. Bush Sr. despised Reagan for his conservatism, and in many ways gave the left in this country many talking points in their battle with Reagan’s policies. The left in this country weren’t clever enough to come up with the “voodoo” economics phrase, which came from Bush Sr. during the primary, and they rode the wave for 8 years until Bush Sr. became President. It was astounding to watch those in the media that praised Bush for his stance against Reagan, then paint him as a staunch supporter of Reagan’s policies. I’m not even going to bother with the ads - if you’re interested, do some digging! For me, give me more voodoo economics because this “new normal” isn’t cutting it!!!!!

The Office of Management and Budget has a rating system that measures the effectiveness of federal programs [5]. The most recent assessment found that 20% of federal programs are not performing - are either ineffective or cannot produce demonstrable results.  The estimated spending associated with these non-performing programs is far in excess of the $100 billion Republicans have suggested they can eliminate during the first year of the new congress. If the OMB can come up with THAT much waste, just imagine what somebody who doesn’t have a dog in the hunt would come up with!

I am of the belief that a majority of the American people know exactly what they expect of their government. The only question that remains is whether the ruling class has the courage to do what is necessary! Change in the behavior of our elected officials will not come about without some political discomfort, and many politicians have ridden the gravy train for a very long time. It is far past time they put the future of the country ahead of their own re-election, and the goals are not mutually exclusive!

There have been a number of suggestions that have come forth concerning federal spending, but the only ones I have seen that don’t re-spend the “saved” money come from the conservative mindset [3][4]! Feel free to criticize the recommendations, but without an alternative, what do we have? The left and right may have similar goals for our country, but the question remains, how do we achieve them? The politicians on BOTH sides have cast their lot for the last 100 or so years, and their collective ignorance has brought us to where we are today.

If anyone thinks you won’t see a replay of Europe here in the States over budget cuts, consider  the developing story of a possible intentional union slowdown in dealing with the New York area’s snow problem in recent weeks, at the cost of lives, mind you. If these charges are proven accurate, this should give you pause in any steadfast support of these organizations and any federal support and favors they receive. 

[1] http://www.realestatenewsutah.com/news/alan-greenspan-henry-paulson-economy-19496

[2] http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

[3] http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/

[4] http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Budget-and-Spending

[5] http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/rating/notperform.html