Small Government

[Blue Velvet]

I often read many posts here from conservatives, and it's often clear what they're against and, in abstract and with less clarity, what they're for.

One of these talismanic ideas that comes up time and time again is the idea of 'small government'. So, this is a thread to explore what that could mean in practice, not some theoretical slogan.

My assumption is that this idea of 'small government' is bound up with governmental spending so, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget), this is a breakdown of the 2010 federal budget. What would you cut or change? And why?

:::

Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) - Social Security
$453 billion (+6.6%) - Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) - Medicaid
$0 billion (-100%) - Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (-100%) - Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%) - Potential disaster costs
$571 billion (-15.2%) - Other mandatory programs
$164 billion (+18.0%) - Interest on National Debt

Discretionary spending: $1.368 trillion (+13.1%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) - Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (-1.7%) - Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) - Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) - Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) - Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) - Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) - Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (-0.4%) - Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) - Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (-6.3%) - Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) - Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) - Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) - Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) - Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) - National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (-3.8%) - Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) - National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) - Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) - Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (-14.3%) - General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) - Other Agencies
$105 billion - Other

:::

Feel free to drill down into the figures for specific departments to highlight programmes that you feel should go or stay. Although I'm sure there are others, here's just one link (http://www.onlineforextrading.com/blog/federal-budget-broken-down/) that itemises specific programmes e.g.

Major Department of Homeland Security Expenses
Transportation

15 new Visual Intermodal Protection Response teams to increase in random force protection capability – $50,000,000

DHS and DoT Planning and modernization of freight infrastructure linking coastal and inland ports to highway and rail networks – $25,000,000


Also, see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/

[Eraserhead]

What's included in social security?

[swiftaw]

What's social security?

The UK equivalent i guess would be your government pension and unemployment benefits

[rdowns]

I think Conservatives want less government. They don't believe the Federal govt. should be in he Social Security, Medicare or Education.

[Eraserhead]

Looking at it overall that the budget is up 15% YoY seems a bit irresponsible to be honest.

[Little HZ]

I think Conservatives want less government. They don't believe the Federal govt. should be in he Social Security, Medicare or Education.

Although they seem to be more than willing to make up for it with huge military spendng ... :rolleyes:

[Queso]

I'd clear out the education budget. From the evidence it's not providing value for money ;)

[Blue Velvet]

Looking at it overall that the budget is up 15% YoY seems a bit irresponsible to be honest.


As one point, I think, unlike the previous administration, the costs of both wars were tallied under the federal budget, instead of separate appropriations from Congress, hence the "including Overseas Contingency Operations" bit.

I remember reading about it at the time but am happy to be shown that this is wrong.

[MyDesktopBroke]

I think Conservatives want less government. They don't believe the Federal govt. should be in he Social Security, Medicare or Education.

Strange that every Republican in house would vote against dismantling medicare then, no?

[MacNut]

Im curious why the Treasury dept needs so much. How much do they spend to make the money that they spend. What is the ratio of a dollar in price of print to value. How much does it cost to print 1 million dollars.

[rdowns]

Strange that every Republican in house would vote against dismantling medicare then, no?


Quite the leap you've taken there.


Im curious why the Treasury dept needs so much. How much do they spend to make the money that they spend. What is the ratio of a dollar in price of print to value. How much does it cost to print 1 million dollars.


The basic functions of the Department of the Treasury include:

Managing Federal finances;
Collecting taxes, duties and monies paid to and due to the U.S. and paying all bills of the U.S.;
Currency and coinage;
Managing Government accounts and the public debt;
Supervising national banks and thrift institutions;
Advising on domestic and international financial, monetary, economic, trade and tax policy;
Enforcing Federal finance and tax laws;
Investigating and prosecuting tax evaders, counterfeiters, and forgers.

[Blue Velvet]

They don't believe the Federal govt. should be in he Social Security, Medicare or Education.


In which case, I'm curious to hear their plans and how they'd do it. After all, it's one thing to boldly claim:

Reduce federal government to about 1/500 it's current size

Yet, it's entirely another to show people how it would be done and explain the consequences of doing so.

[Beerfloat]

I'd cut defense spending in half and put half of that in both training and job creation so that we can redeploy ex-soldiers in areas of health care, education and community improvement.

The other half of the spending cut will go into paying off the national debt.

[alFR]

Well, if it were me I'd cut quite a bit of this:

$663.7 billion (+12.7%) - Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)

by maybe not invading other countries for a while. There are perhaps other places that some of that money could be spent, trivial stuff really, perhaps like trying to cure cancer or something.

Then I'd try to find out where this was actually going:

$105 billion - Other

and maybe try to economise a tiny bit on the photocopying etc. ;)

[obeygiant]

I often read many posts here from conservatives, and it's often clear what they're against and, in abstract and with less clarity, what they're for.

One of these talismanic ideas that comes up time and time again is the idea of 'small government'. So, this is a thread to explore what that could mean in practice, not some theoretical slogan.

The term "small government" to me, isn't just about how big the budget was, but the reach of government into private enterprise and private citizens. Probably due to the believe that the government can administer but cannot manage. Because if its just about the money, its all relative.


I'm not trying to derail the thread... It could be why the public option in health care is such a heated and bipartisan issue. Nearly all republicans oppose it while democrats don't seem to want to budge on it. A conservative take on that would be that it interferes too much in private enterprise where as a "small government" would be more laissez faire about it.

[Tesselator]

The term "small government" to me, isn't just about how big the budget was, but the reach of government into private enterprise and private citizens.

I agree but this is reflected in the budgeting almost directly. So Blue Velvet is right to do it this way. For example we could cut the department of education all together by giving them a budget of $0. And then this would allow the free market plus local gov. to decide what's appropriate in the text books instead of having government mandate (or thwart via funding) that gay couples appear in social reading examples xx%, God be mentioned or not, the teaching of actual american history and the constitution could once again be established and taught correctly, etc. etc. The teachers and administrators make up a pretty good cross section of the local community so it would likely be representative and balanced. Schools would be funded by state and local taxes and so the details of curriculum, campus security, and etc. would be handled at that level as well.

That's just one example but with a little meditation you can see here I hope, how budget appropriations (federal government spending) are directly related to freedom and liberty. The more the federal government spends the less freedoms and liberties we have. Some programs already established (like the medi-stuff) should probably remain until the people figure out on their own how much better it is to handle these things in a decentralized non-governmental fashion.

The military budget is the biggest and worst IMO. We don't need huge armies stationed all over the world. This is an absurd concept and usually does nothing but cause trouble. The installations in Japan are a perfect example of this. They do nothing for the Japanese and there is quite a lot of rape, violence, and other crime associated with every military installation here. That's like a 15 or 20 billion cut right there (just Japan) and it would solve a lot of problems. etc. etc.

The way it works generally speaking now is that we pay our state and local taxes which then go to the federal government and then the feds decide and negotiate if they'll give it back (to the states) and what it can be used for. Why? That's silly. And who are they to tell us in our own communities what we can do with our money? Just keep it in the state realm in the first place like we used to do.

[jknight8907]

$663.7 billion (+12.7%) - Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)

Cut this immensely. Quit meddling in all sorts of other countries and worry about what's going on back at home. Every other major country is doing just fine on a fraction of what we spend on defense, why can't we?

[Tesselator]

And just to be clear:

Bush roughly tripled that size of government. :(

Obama has already spent more than all other presidents combined! :confused::eek::eek::confused:

[bobber205]

And just to be clear:

Bush roughly tripled that size of government. :(

Obama has already spent more than all other presidents combined! :confused::eek::eek::confused:

Link? You are aware we almost had a 2nd great depression right?

[Tesselator]

Link? You are aware we almost had a 2nd great depression right?

Almost? It ain't over yet!!!

Fact: Obama's first BUDGET is 4X Bush's last Budget. The difference between Budget and tax revenue is called the Budget deficit. To clear a deficit you can either increase tax revenue or sell debt called Bonds, which have to be paid back with interest. The money a country owes is called the national Debt

Aside from Obama's budget Congress passed and he signed other, off budget spending acts such as bailouts/TARP and the Stimulus. There were no funds to pay for these spending bills so more debt/Bonds are being sold.

If you add up all the money that our government has committed to spend. since January, it is more than the spending of all prior administrations combined. In addition, this does not include the money costs of Cap & Trade and the Healthcare plans.

A few sources but WTH can't you look it up yourself?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-will-nearly-quadruple-deficit.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-6996-Louisville-Economic-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d16-Tax-and-Spend-is-Here-Again
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753066246235811.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-16781-Tallahassee-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m7d16-Your-share-of-the-national-debt-3756866


By way of some history, in 1920 there was a depression that most people have forgotten about. Unemployment was higher and the economic downturn was greater than in the"Great Depression" of the 1930's. The government at the time responded by cutting government spending and lowering taxes instead of what FDR and Obama do. The depression was over in 2 years, by the mid 20's unemployment was down to 1.8% and the National debt was paid off entirely.

A few sources:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Smiley.1920s.final
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim4.html
http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/2009/02/the-great-depression-of-1920.html


Other interesting links:

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc ** Funny! :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY&NR=1 On topic for the thread.

[callmemike20]

Link? You are aware we almost had a 2nd great depression right?

And a Great Depression requires the government to spend more? Give me proof of this please.

[.Andy]

And a Great Depression requires the government to spend more? Give me proof of this please.
How does callmemike20's economic policy work where the government spends less when the economy is in/beginning to downturn?

[Tesselator]

Read the second set of (three) links in post #20.

[Techhie]

I'd clear out the education budget. From the evidence it's not providing value for money ;)

They need to reevaluate the education system instead of cutting the budget. Pouring money into a failing system is pointless, and it is likewise ignorant to take it away and encourage cheating on mandatory state testing that impacts fund distribution.

This coming from a High School student in Nevada, rated #49 in public education (behind Mississippi, of course :rolleyes:)

[.Andy]

I'm not trying to derail the thread... It could be why the public option in health care is such a heated and bipartisan issue. Nearly all republicans oppose it while democrats don't seem to want to budge on it. A conservative take on that would be that it interferes too much in private enterprise where as a "small government" would be more laissez faire about it.
Not to derail the thread either but the US governments version of laissez faire economics and free market private enterprise has resulted in an abysmal health system for the populace by comparison to other countries with UHC. It's more expensive per capita with inferior gross health outcomes. There's absolutely no reason why there can't be a mixture of private enterprise and a public safety net in healthcare.

[Eraserhead]

Fact: Obama's first BUDGET is 4X Bush's last Budget.

No, it is only up 15%. Multiplying by 1.15 cannot be the same as multiplying by 4. Its not mathematically possible.

[Gelfin]

For example we could cut the department of education all together by giving them a budget of $0.

Well, yes, technically we could. You're a long way from demonstrating it's a good idea.

And then this would allow the free market plus local gov. to decide what's appropriate in the text books

Textbook publishers are already one hundred percent private concerns. There are vastly fewer market choices available today than twenty years ago, but that's because of a steady process of mergers and acquisitions driven by the free market and a lack of government interference.

From among the few selections left available, the materials your children use in public schools are already decided at the local district and state levels. The federal government does not prescribe texts for schools.

For those who find such options unsatisfactory, every state has a robust network of private schools, with each school able to independently select its own texts subject to the constraints of optional (but highly desirable) accreditation standards. Accreditation organizations in the United States have no ties to the Department of Education or the government more generally.

instead of having government mandate (or thwart via funding) that gay couples appear in social reading examples xx%,

Use of federal funding through the Commerce Clause to regulate state behavior is a tried and true standard, naturally. Its most familiar application for most Americans was the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act of 1974, implemented in USC Title 23 in 1975, which established the 55mph national speed limit by withholding highway funding from states that did not comply, as Montana notably did not fully. This restriction was raised to 65mph in 1987 and then repealed entirely in 1995.

I am certain you will be able to cite similarly the bills and laws by which the federal government mandates that "xx%" of "social reading examples" portray gay couples.

God be mentioned or not,

This is a Constitutional matter, and appropriately federal. For someone about to complain that the Constitution is not being taught, you should know better. For those unsatisfied, private schools remain a viable option.

the teaching of actual american history and the constitution could once again be established and taught correctly, etc. etc.

It's been some years, but I was certainly taught both. I know a handful of admittedly uncommon people substantially younger than myself who have a better grasp of both than I do.

When do you believe teaching of history and government ceased or was altered, and by what mechanism do you believe this was accomplished? More specifics and less hand-wringing, please.

The teachers and administrators make up a pretty good cross section of the local community so it would likely be representative and balanced. Schools would be funded by state and local taxes and so the details of curriculum, campus security, and etc. would be handled at that level as well.

With an open concession that "No Child Left Behind" was a miserable failure, I reiterate that in the main this is precisely how public schools already operate. Federal funding ranges from majority to supplemental by state, depending on a number of factors such as whether local legislators opt to provide robust local funding sources, and whether local districts are capable of generating enough revenue to keep the doors of a school open.

This latter concern is the most significant raison d'etre for the Department of Education. It's all good if your local economy can support a school on local taxes alone, but many places cannot. Federal funding is meant to make good on the promise that a basic education should be available to everyone. To deny those in poverty the most fundamental tool for escaping poverty is to turn the United States into a caste society.

That's just one example but with a little meditation you can see…

I get it now. You haven't figured out yet that meditation alone is a lousy guide to truth. Boiling the information you've already received only results in mush, with sloppy false inferences oozing into the gaps in concrete knowledge. You can't trust it as more than a hint at what direction to look for more concrete knowledge.

[macfan881]

I've been thinking about this really going back to pre 9/11 before it happen we had a realitvly small goverment and then 9/11 goverment start to get big with security conrtolness etc. it seems it comes to my mind that When ever a big event happens we want the Goverment to step in and take action then later we dont what are you guys thoughts on this I just think its kinda stupid to argue cause no mater what happens we will always say why wasnt the Goverment involved or how could they let this happen to me its always seems like its a no win for the Gov. what are your guys thoughts.

[thegoldenmackid]

It's all subjective. There is never going to be a "small American government"

[DakotaGuy]

It's all subjective. There is never going to be a "small American government"

I agree. There was a time when government did become smaller and we saw the affect in the late 1990's under Clinton. We cut spending and even with reasonable tax rates (higher then today, but still within reason) we had a budget surplus. Government has been expanding fairly rapidly since that time and it looks like healthcare may require another expansion.

[Desertrat]

"...does it really matter?"

To me, yes, it does. Smaller government means more freedom to make my own decisions about my life, my well-being. I'm underwhelmed by the idea that somebody in government can do that better than I can.

I've watched the increase in the power of the central government since before LBJ's programs. There has not been and reduction in that growth during any administration, and more often than not each administration has accelerated the process.

The reason we're in this present economic horror show is the use of government power to enable one group in the world of finance and misallocate funds to other groups. None of this would be happening but for governmental stupidity in dealing with monetary policy and the politics of vote-buying.

Among other things, just as a clue, note that the numbers of lobbying groups, the special-interest groups, have increased as government meddling in daily affairs has increased. Had government not gotten to be Leviathan, these groups would not feel the need to exist.

I note than when what is ostensibly a health-care improvement bill contains language mandating the purchase of health insurance or you'll face fines and jail time, you are not dealing with Nice People. This is not about health; it's about power over you.

'Rat

[Tesselator]

Of course it matters. This is a fact. There is no debate.

[miloblithe]

"...does it really matter?"

To me, yes, it does. Smaller government means more freedom to make my own decisions about my life, my well-being. I'm underwhelmed by the idea that somebody in government can do that better than I can.

...

'Rat

Rat, I assume then that you've considered moving to Somalia. As a true believer in the maxim that that government is best that governs least, I would imagine that nothing would be more more compelling to you than the Utopian fantasy land that is Somalia. I mean, they don't even HAVE a central government.

[imac/cheese]

...One of these talismanic ideas that comes up time and time again is the idea of 'small government'. So, this is a thread to explore what that could mean in practice, not some theoretical slogan.
...

I wouldn't call myself a conservative but I am a republican so I will give you my answers:

$663.7 billion (+12.7%) - Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)

I think our current military structure eliminates more lives than it saves so spending any money on it at all is a waste in my mind. Of course the millions of people who work for the DoD would crush the economy if they were laid off.

$78.7 billion (-1.7%) - Department of Health and Human Services

Reform in this area could greatly reduce costs. Of course, my preference is for a single payer system that would increase the share that the government is paying.

$52.5 billion (+10.3%) - Department of Veterans Affairs

I think the post-9/11 GI Bill is not money well spent. A lot of people are eligible that do not need the money for college and did not need the incentive of college education to sign up for the military. The bill went into effect long after many of members were already out of the military and using the Montegomery GI Bill.

$46.7 billion (+12.8%) - Department of Education

I am not really in favor of federal money for college. I would rather see that money spent for early education and K-12 programs than college programs.

$42.7 billion (+1.2%) - Department of Homeland Security

I think this department is a complete waste of money.

$26.3 billion (-0.4%) - Department of Energy

I don't think we should be spending money on low-carbon coal or carbon sequestering. A good energy bill (with cap and trade) could do wonders for this department and make the free-market come up with better ways to reduce both pollution and energy consumption.

$26.0 billion (+8.8%) - Department of Agriculture

I don't like spending money on farm subsidies. I would rather us have higher prices at the grocery store and then subsidize grocery bills for low income families.

Is rural broadband really a necessity?

$23.9 billion (-6.3%) - Department of Justice

I think the war on drugs is filling our prisons to excess and we could really save a ton if drugs were legal. The taxes on legalized drugs could also create considerable income for the country.

$18.7 billion (+5.1%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

I like NASA, though in general I think it is a waste of money.

$13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of the Treasury

Federal tax reform could greatly reduce the budget of the treasury department.

$12.0 billion (+6.2%) - Department of the Interior

I think we should spend more money in this area.

[Zombie Acorn]

You don't have to cut the programs entirely, you must make them more efficient. Anyone who thinks we don't waste money that could otherwise be saved is fooling themselves.

Labeling one side "mandatory spending" makes no sense when the systems themselves are not efficient. Thats about the equivalent of buying an econo car for $50k more than its worth and saying its "mandatory" because you need a car to get to work.

[Counterfit]

I wouldn't call myself a conservative but I am a republican so I will give you my answers
Hmm, according to the GOP, you're a RINO. :p
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) - Department of Homeland Security

I think this department is a complete waste of money.

I agree to an extent. I guess the question we're left with is: Do we return the Coast Guard and Secret Service back to the Treasury dept.?

$26.3 billion (-0.4%) - Department of Energy

I don't think we should be spending money on low-carbon coal or carbon sequestering. A good energy bill (with cap and trade) could do wonders for this department and make the free-market come up with better ways to reduce both pollution and energy consumption.

Agree again.

$18.7 billion (+5.1%) - National Aeronautics and Space Administration

I like NASA, though in general I think it is a waste of money.

They already have to fight like hell to et the funding they receive, and the research they do in many areas is really important

$13.3 billion (+4.7%) - Department of the Treasury

Federal tax reform could greatly reduce the budget of the treasury department.

Does anyone know offhand what their budget was before the USCG and Secret Service were moved?
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) - Department of the Interior

I think we should spend more money in this area.

We don't spend nearly enough on the National Park System.

[Tomorrow]

You don't have to cut the programs entirely, you must make them more efficient.

Very true.

I'd eliminate government spending for school lunches, and phase out or reduce spending on Social Security, for starters. And like ZA has said, there are so many areas where we could simply streamline a program or department without eliminating it.

[rdowns]

I would tell every department head that they were to cut their budget by 10% this year and 15% next year and they could not do so by eliminating employees.

[miloblithe]

I would tell every department head that they were to cut their budget by 10% this year and 15% next year and they could not do so by eliminating employees.

That sounds like it would leave the government with a lot of staff who wouldn't have funds to do any actual work.

"Denise, I'm sorry your computer broke, but we don't have funds to buy a new one."

"Larry, I agree it would be great to have a conference call with the stakeholders on this project, but we don't have any more telephone funds this year. Maybe next year."

As a government contractor, I'm actually a little startled by how rediculously frugal the government actually is. None of those office freebies like coffee allowed. As a lower-mid level employee in a private company, my office is nicer than 99.9% of government employees. My boss's boss's boss, who is a government employee, has a tiny cubicle half the size of my office.

Want to cut government fat? Increase the size of government and eliminate most of the contractors.

[Zombie Acorn]

I would tell every department head that they were to cut their budget by 10% this year and 15% next year and they could not do so by eliminating employees.

If targets aren't reached they are fired. :p Part of the problem with government ran programs is that there is no accountability.

[Zombie Acorn]

That sounds like it would leave the government with a lot of staff who wouldn't have funds to do any actual work.

"Denise, I'm sorry your computer broke, but we don't have funds to buy a new one."

"Larry, I agree it would be great to have a conference call with the stakeholders on this project, but we don't have any more telephone funds this year. Maybe next year."

As a government contractor, I'm actually a little startled by how rediculously frugal the government actually is. None of those office freebies like coffee allowed. As a lower-mid level employee in a private company, my office is nicer than 99.9% of government employees. My boss's boss's boss, who is a government employee, has a tiny cubicle half the size of my office.

Want to cut government fat? Increase the size of government and eliminate most of the contractors.

Thats because you are working on the tax payers dime, we don't want to pay for your coffee. I do agree that contractors tend to bulge their budgets in my experience though.

[Tomorrow]

Thats because you are working on the tax payers dime, we don't want to pay for your coffee. I do agree that contractors tend to bulge their budgets in my experience though.

The amount of bureaucratic red tape that goes into a government project bloats the budget. I've done design for government projects in the past - the number of times a design has to go through preliminary reviews, by so many different departments, is mind-numbing. It adds at least a 25% premium to the fee, and in at least once case I worked on it was over 40%.

Like you said - streamlining is the key.

[imac/cheese]

The amount of bureaucratic red tape that goes into a government project bloats the budget. I've done design for government projects in the past - the number of times a design has to go through preliminary reviews, by so many different departments, is mind-numbing. It adds at least a 25% premium to the fee, and in at least once case I worked on it was over 40%.

Like you said - streamlining is the key.

On the other hand, I have seen streamlining backfire as well. A streamlined project that is not reviewed thoroughly by all the departments ends up missing some critical areas that end up costing a lot more down the road. yes the initial cost was cheaper but maintenance costs soared because proper review wasn't completed.

[Zombie Acorn]

On the other hand, I have seen streamlining backfire as well. A streamlined project that is not reviewed thoroughly by all the departments ends up missing some critical areas that end up costing a lot more down the road. yes the initial cost was cheaper but maintenance costs soared because proper review wasn't completed.

It depends on the reviewers, many areas of government have too many administrators and not enough people who know what they are doing.

[leekohler]

... phase out or reduce spending on Social Security...

Please tell me you're joking. We can't do that. Social Security is fine as long as the Fed doesn't dip into it for it's own purposes. We have many people who really need this through no fault of their own. And honestly, I'd much rather spend money on our own people than spend it killing others.

[Zombie Acorn]

Please tell me you're joking. We can't do that. Social Security is fine as long as the Fed doesn't dip into it for it's own purposes. We have many people who really need this through no fault of their own. And honestly, I'd much rather spend money on our own people than spend it killing others.

It depends on what part of the system you are talking about, I shouldn't be forced to use a government retirement plan (especially when the government is basically using it as a revenue stream instead of trying to create wealth with it) if I think I can achieve better returns using the money myself. People who become disabled is another story in my mind though and should be kept separate.

[Tomorrow]

Please tell me you're joking. We can't do that. Social Security is fine as long as the Fed doesn't dip into it for it's own purposes.

I'd like to take it a step further: Social Security is fine as long as it isn't doling out more money than it's taking in, and at the rate it's going (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html), it's not going to be solvent for very long. It can't be maintained in its present incarnation.

Sure, many people become disabled and need to rely on it. I don't have a problem with that. But many people who have relied on it to be their sole source of retirement income are receiving far more from it than they ever put into it, with interest. Hence the calls for SS to be privatized.

[leekohler]

I'd like to take it a step further: Social Security is fine as long as it isn't doling out more money than it's taking in, and at the rate it's going (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html), it's not going to be solvent for very long. It can't be maintained in its present incarnation.

Sure, many people become disabled and need to rely on it. I don't have a problem with that. But many people who have relied on it to be their sole source of retirement income are receiving far more from it than they ever put into it, with interest. Hence the calls for SS to be privatized.

Yeah , because privatization will solve everything. :rolleyes: Sorry- not while I'm alive. And it was put in place to help people with retirement as well. Why shouldn't people who paid for it not get it? Of course they will be getting more, inflation happens.

And I've been paying into it for 26 years. I damn well better get that benefit if and when I need it.

It depends on what part of the system you are talking about, I shouldn't be forced to use a government retirement plan (especially when the government is basically using it as a revenue stream instead of trying to create wealth with it) if I think I can achieve better returns using the money myself.

After what just happened with the banks, you guys seriously think that privatizing SS is a good idea? Are you ********** kidding me? Sorry- NO WAY.

[Zombie Acorn]

Yeah , because privatization will solve everything. :rolleyes: Sorry- not while I'm alive. And it was put in place to help people with retirement as well. Why shouldn't people who paid for it not get it? Of course they will be getting more, inflation happens.

And I've been paying into it for 26 years. I damn well better get that benefit if and when I need it.



After what just happened with the banks, you guys seriously think that privatizing SS is a good idea? Are you ********** kidding me? Sorry- NO WAY.

The government is doing worse than private business did, they aren't even pretending to invest in solvent assets to further the wealth of the people, they are spending it quicker than it comes in. If I hired a retirement service that did that with my money I would punch them in the face.

[Tomorrow]

And I've been paying into it for 26 years. I damn well better get that benefit if and when I need it.

You should get out of it what you put into it, plus interest. I have a problem when people get more than that out of it, and that's been happening for years. I'd like to see it phased out - no more collecting it simply because you retired. Have people invest that money elsewhere, it will yield a better return and keep people from collecting money that they didn't earn.

Again, no problem with using SS to help disabled people. I don't have a problem with paying in for that.

[leekohler]

You should get out of it what you put into it, plus interest. I have a problem when people get more than that out of it, and that's been happening for years. I'd like to see it phased out - no more collecting it simply because you retired. Have people invest that money elsewhere, it will yield a better return and keep people from collecting money that they didn't earn.

Again, no problem with using SS to help disabled people. I don't have a problem with paying in for that.

Sorry- but if I see fit to use it when I retire, I better damn well get to use it.

[Gelfin]

Again, no problem with using SS to help disabled people. I don't have a problem with paying in for that.

Old age is a disability that happens to everybody, and not everybody has the luxury of saving for it adequately.

Your Social Security payout is already tied to your lifetime contributions, the progressive skew is not especially severe, and annual income caps that fall well into the middle class prevent the program from soaking the wealthy too hard. Because the program payout is not means tested, people who are able to save adequately for retirement receive their due just the same as anyone else, which avoids punishing them for their prudence.

As liberal social programs go, Social Security is pretty delicately implemented, far more so than you'd guess by listening to right-wing hacks who want to convince you that, as a pure article of faith, any social program is little more than an insidious scheme to allow indigent brown probably-criminal people to steal from you with impunity.

[Desertrat]

Gelfin, I don't know any right-wing hacks. I do know some small-c conservatives who are functional with basic mathematics and who can read data from the demographers. Bernie Madoff was a piker compared to Social Security. Just run the numbers. Look at how many started out in the ratio of workers to recipients and what it is today. Look at the promised maximum withholding tax rate versus what it is today. And then count the noses of those coming into eligibility versus the amount of money available.

Ponzi. Well, he died broke but at least he wasn't eleven trillion bucks in the hole with ten years of a trillion a year adding onto the debt.

Blue Velvet, I just flat-out don't trust great big government with strong central power over the populace. And this is an interesting time to bring up your opening post, given the anniversaries involving great big governments with those strong powers: The fall of the Berlin Wall. Tiannemen Square. And from 1938, Kristallnacht.

And now we have Bosses inside the Beltway who in the name of medical reform are willing for me to face huge fines and jail time if I don't buy health insurance? That's my best interest in their hearts? I don't think so. And a Fearless Leader who in an interview with ABC likens such punishment to that punishment you face for not buying liability insurance for your car? What sort of ignorant sophistry is that?

Probably a good time to re-read Tom Paine. Re-read; I assume educated people have at least a first-time nodding acquaintance from their school daze. 'Cause we're sure into times which try men's souls...

Sorry to run off; five miles of road grader over a three-hour period has my driveway smoothed out, but also has this Olde Phart ready for bed...

'Rat

[Blue Velvet]

And now we have Bosses inside the Beltway who in the name of medical reform are willing for me to face huge fines and jail time if I don't buy health insurance?

This is false.

Section 501 of the House bill imposes a tax of 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income. You are exempted from the tax if you already have qualifying health insurance from your employer, if you receive benefits from Medicare or Medicaid, if you are a dependent, if you are overseas, and if you have religions objections. You also get subsidies in the form of tax credits and tax deductions if your income is below a certain level; and if you are in poverty you are already exempted because you participate in Medicaid.

If you are not exempted, and you don't purchase health insurance, you just pay a higher tax. You don't go to jail.

Now, if you refuse to pay your taxes, the government will fine you in the same way that it does whenever you refuse to pay your taxes. Prison is also a possibility for the most determined tax cheats, although generally speaking prison terms are reserved for the most egregious violations of the tax laws.

So if you have the following choices: If you are not exempted, you must buy qualifying health insurance. If you'd rather not, for whatever reasons, you can pay a higher tax. If you pay your taxes, nobody will come after you.

If you don't want to pay your taxes, the government will punish you, not because you object to buying health insurance, but because the government doesn't like it whenever you don't pay your taxes. It also doesn't like it when people don't pay their taxes because they object to the government's defense spending.

You might object: the individual mandate tax is different than general revenues going to defense spending. This is a tax directed at people if they don't do something. That is true, but in this case the tax is correlated to the costs that you impose on others by failing to join the risk pool for health insurance.

If lots of people (and especially young and mostly healthy people) don't buy health insurance, the cost of insurance goes up for everyone, and it is passed on to others in the form of higher premiums. In addition, people who don't buy health insurance tend to wait until their health problems are severe and then use emergency services; they may contract communicable diseases (which they may pass on to others) or they may become disabled. All of these costs get passed along to others--in the form of higher premiums and higher costs for hospitals and insurers--or they have to be absorbed by federal and state governments through programs for the poor or the disabled.

So if you don't buy health insurance, you are increasing costs for other people. The federal government is taxing you to recoup some of those costs. An analogy would be taxes on alcohol or tobacco, although these taxes are usually worked into the retail price of the goods so that people don't even have the opportunity to refuse to pay them. Another example would be taxes on an enterprise that is creating additional costs to the environment through pollution; the government taxes you if you don't purchase and install anti-pollution equipment. If people don't purchase the pollution-control equipment and won't pay the tax, the government will fine them too.

Again, you may object: isn't the argument that you are imposing costs on others really an argument that young and healthy people are subsidizing other people? Why should I be forced to pay taxes that benefit others more than they benefit me? The answer is that tax policy does this all the time. Progressive income taxes, for example. tax subsidize middle class and poor people at the expense of rich people. You can't get out of paying taxes just because your tax dollars subsidize people you'd rather not subsidize. This is as true of rich people who object to subsidizing the poor and middle class as it is of people who have ideological objections to government health care programs.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/11/will-i-go-to-jail-if-i-dont-buy-health.html


That's all I'll add at this point.

[CaptMurdock]

"...does it really matter?"

To me, yes, it does. Smaller government means more freedom to make my own decisions about my life, my well-being.

Oh, please. What freedoms (and be specific, here) have been taken away from you by Teh E-Ville Federal Gubmint? What have you specifically been forbidden to do by the Faceless Powers That Be? How is your life unfulfilled because we actually dared to make laws beyond making sure that murderers get put in jail and water comes out of the tap?

[it5five]

I would tell every department head that they were to cut their budget by 10% this year and 15% next year and they could not do so by eliminating employees.

Not a good idea. Our governor here in Arizona has asked the various departments to send in a report on what effect a 15% budget cut would have. The Dept. of Transportation here would have to cease all road repair except for extreme circumstances, would have to close all rest stops in the state, would lose federal funding on top of that (since the state has to contribute a certain amount before the fed. contributes as well), and would have to close all but 2 or 3 DMV offices in the entire state (which would lead to revenue losses on top of the budget cuts).

Our state economy has been driven into the ground by conservatives who would rather cease all functioning of the government before any consideration of a tax increase. They've even gone so far as to sell our state government buildings and lease them back from the private companies that now own them. The state legislature has cut money from the Dept. of Economic Security (responsible for handling unemployment claims and payments) at a time when our state is facing huge unemployment.

[bobber205]

Not a good idea. Our governor here in Arizona has asked the various departments to send in a report on what effect a 15% budget cut would have. The Dept. of Transportation here would have to cease all road repair except for extreme circumstances, would have to close all rest stops in the state, and would lose federal funding on top of that (since the state has to contribute a certain amount before the fed. contributes as well), would have to close all but 2 or 3 DMV offices in the entire state (which would lead to revenue losses on top of the budget cut).

I totally believe what they said to be accurate, but what is the 85% of their budget going to? Surely that 15% is going to all those things right? I'm sure we're talking about economies of scale here but that seems pretty extreme.

Is that all the details they provided?

[it5five]

More details might be provided here:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/10/28/20091028adot-cuts.html

It's hard to say unless we have access to the report itself.

[Desertrat]

CaptMurdock, we have some 20,000 gun control laws which do nothing to reduce violent crime with firearms. So there's a specific start, and if you want a specific law, consider the GCA of 1968.

If I'm ranching in Montana, I am prevented by law from protection of my livestock from predation by grizzly bears or wolves. If I'm farming in the Central Valley of California, I'm bankrupt because of federal law now determined as applicable to a minnow.

If a third party's pollution traverses your riverfront land and enters the river, you are held by EPA to be responsible for ending the pollution. That did indeed happen, and the landowner went to jail for two years since he did not have the estimated $300,000 necessary to pay for the cleanup.

If I have a business in an old building, I am forced by federal law to modify the building for crippled people's access--without regard for the profitability of my business and whether or not it's affordable.

Cities require that lawns be mowed, as Ned Fritz of the Sierra Club discovered at his Dallas, Texas, home. Can't have native grasses. Georgia law won't let me be insured on her policy in driving my wife's car with its Georgia registration (We're a two-home family; Farm Bureau Insurance). Some places, you can't park an extra car on your lawn.

IOW, government at all levels screws over you in some fashion or another, reducing your liberty.

Blue Velvet, your cite of 501 is all well and good, but it's only one item. The fine/jail has been cited in the regular MSM as well as the Internet, and Obama spoke to it in his interview.

Even if 501 were the only required cost, the issue will be moot in some ten or fifteen years anyway. No private-sector business can compete with a subsidized government program, and will thus give up and quit. It's the Japaness business technique: Undercut your competitor's prices, even if you lose money. After you've driven them out of business in the target area, raise your prices. (Ask the folks at Caterpillar about Kubota, e.g.)

Regardless, it's a government takeover of a private-sector matter, just as the takeover of home mortgages or the two automobile companies or the investment banks. Extensions of government power and control in areas in which it should not be involved. Reductions in freedoms of choice.

'Rat

[miloblithe]

There are two kinds of freedom Rat. Freedom to and freedom from. Anyone who is entirely focused on either one is someone to worry about. Finding a delicate balance between the two is the business of government, society, family... you name it.

[takao]

Rat, I assume then that you've considered moving to Somalia. As a true believer in the maxim that that government is best that governs least, I would imagine that nothing would be more more compelling to you than the Utopian fantasy land that is Somalia. I mean, they don't even HAVE a central government.

i am always striked how very seldom Somalia is actually mentioned in this regard.. after all not only is there next to no governmentinvolvement in privat lifes and gun ownership is quite common

it should be wonderland to some theories i heard over the years

[fivepoint]

The funny thing about all of these social programs... is that even if you all love them, that doesn't change the fact that they're all BROKE! SS is broke! Medicare is BROKE! Medicaid is BROKE! And they're broke not by accident, but because they're fundamentally flawed. Read my lips... TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN UNFUNDED LIABILITIES. They're going to fail, and fail hard.

SS is the best example, since it is nothing more than exactly what Madoff did with his Ponzi Scheme. (do you disagree that SS is a ponzi scheme? Look it up. Check the definition, and them read about SS and explain to me how it's NOT on Ponzi Scheme, destined to fail) It's a broken system held together with the assumption that inputs will continue to grow. The funds being collected today are being used today. The system required an ever-growing population to support the revenues for the older generation. It's not IF it will fail and go bankrupt, but WHEN it will fail and go bankrupt.

It's amazing how many liberals and 'social justice' proponents suffer from short-term thinking. They seem to fail majorly at thinking long-term and about basic human psychology. Ironic that they're the ones who think they're saving society from danger, when the policies they put in place destroying personal responsibility and basic motivation. They're setting us up for an inevitable fall which will hurt far more than it will help.

[fivepoint]

CaptMurdock, we have some 20,000 gun control laws which do nothing to reduce violent crime with firearms. So there's a specific start, and if you want a specific law, consider the GCA of 1968.

If I'm ranching in Montana, I am prevented by law from protection of my livestock from predation by grizzly bears or wolves. If I'm farming in the Central Valley of California, I'm bankrupt because of federal law now determined as applicable to a minnow.

If a third party's pollution traverses your riverfront land and enters the river, you are held by EPA to be responsible for ending the pollution. That did indeed happen, and the landowner went to jail for two years since he did not have the estimated $300,000 necessary to pay for the cleanup.

If I have a business in an old building, I am forced by federal law to modify the building for crippled people's access--without regard for the profitability of my business and whether or not it's affordable.

Cities require that lawns be mowed, as Ned Fritz of the Sierra Club discovered at his Dallas, Texas, home. Can't have native grasses. Georgia law won't let me be insured on her policy in driving my wife's car with its Georgia registration (We're a two-home family; Farm Bureau Insurance). Some places, you can't park an extra car on your lawn.

IOW, government at all levels screws over you in some fashion or another, reducing your liberty.



+1 If we made a list of all the ways the government was stripping individual liberties, we'd be here all day and the list would probably be 10x longer than even the legal copy behind the proposed healthcare bill. :) Good start though.

[miloblithe]

The funny thing about all of these social programs... is that even if you all love them, that doesn't change the fact that they're all BROKE! SS is broke! Medicare is BROKE! Medicaid is BROKE! And they're broke not by accident, but because they're fundamentally flawed. Read my lips... TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN UNFUNDED LIABILITIES. They're going to fail, and fail hard.

SS is the best example, since it is nothing more than exactly what Madoff did with his Ponzi Scheme. (do you disagree that SS is a ponzi scheme? Look it up. Check the definition, and them read about SS and explain to me how it's NOT on Ponzi Scheme, destined to fail) It's a broken system held together with the assumption that inputs will continue to grow. The funds being collected today are being used today. The system required an ever-growing population to support the revenues for the older generation. It's not IF it will fail and go bankrupt, but WHEN it will fail and go bankrupt.

It's amazing how many liberals and 'social justice' proponents suffer from short-term thinking. They seem to fail majorly at thinking long-term and about basic human psychology. Ironic that they're the ones who think they're saving society from danger, when the policies they put in place destroying personal responsibility and basic motivation. They're setting us up for an inevitable fall which will hurt far more than it will help.

Willfully ignorant and wrong.

In contrast to a Ponzi scheme, dependent upon an unsustainable progression, a common financial arrangement is the so-called "pay-as-you-go" system. Some private pension systems, as well as Social Security, have used this design. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.

There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. So we could image that at any given time there might be, say, 40 million people receiving benefits at the back end of the pipeline; and as long as we had 40 million people paying taxes in the front end of the pipe, the program could be sustained forever. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary. (There does not have to be precisely the same number of workers and beneficiaries at a given time--there just needs to be a stable relationship between the two.) As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.

In this context, it would be most accurate to describe Social Security as a transfer payment--transferring income from the generation of workers to the generation of retirees--with the promise that when current workers retiree, there will be another generation of workers behind them who will be the source of their Social Security retirement payments. So you could say that Social Security is a transfer payment, but it is not a pyramid scheme. There is a huge difference between the two, and only a superficial similarity.

If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. During periods when more new participants are entering the system than are receiving benefits there tends to be a surplus in funding (as in the early years of Social Security). During periods when beneficiaries are growing faster than new entrants (as will happen when the baby boomers retire), there tends to be a deficit. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes, or any other fraudulent form of financing, it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems. (Of coure one might want to argue that there are better ways to finance Social Security than its traditional pay-as-you-go approach. However one views this policy question, we are concerned here only to correct the mistaken idea that a pay-as-you-go system is the same thing as a Ponzi scheme.)

Point two:

Social security is broke? Are you insane? Social security has over $2.4 trillion in assets.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html

you can recite your mantra of "unfunded liabilities", but if you want to "fix" social security, it's mind bogglingly simple to do so. OK, we raise the tax from 10% to 10.5% and raise the retirement age from 67 to 68. Now social security is solvent probably through the end of the 21st century. Looks like it's out of balance again, raise the retirement age to 69. Man, that was tough.

There's a difference between wanting it to fail (your position) and its destiny to fail (which has no basis in math).

[rdowns]

Not a good idea. Our governor here in Arizona has asked the various departments to send in a report on what effect a 15% budget cut would have. The Dept. of Transportation here would have to cease all road repair except for extreme circumstances, would have to close all rest stops in the state, would lose federal funding on top of that (since the state has to contribute a certain amount before the fed. contributes as well), and would have to close all but 2 or 3 DMV offices in the entire state (which would lead to revenue losses on top of the budget cuts).

Our state economy has been driven into the ground by conservatives who would rather cease all functioning of the government before any consideration of a tax increase. They've even gone so far as to sell our state government buildings and lease them back from the private companies that now own them. The state legislature has cut money from the Dept. of Economic Security (responsible for handling unemployment claims and payments) at a time when our state is facing huge unemployment.


I find that very hard to believe. If they are operating at such an efficient level, which I don't believe any govt. organization does or can, why isn't this being done everywhere?

[miloblithe]

I find that very hard to believe. If they are operating at such an efficient level, which I don't believe any govt. organization does or can, why isn't this being done everywhere?

I think part of the problem, as illustrated by your post, is that many people seem to take it as an article of faith that government is inefficient, regardless of whether or not any particular program is or is not efficient.

[ucfgrad93]

Not a good idea. Our governor here in Arizona has asked the various departments to send in a report on what effect a 15% budget cut would have. The Dept. of Transportation here would have to cease all road repair except for extreme circumstances, would have to close all rest stops in the state, would lose federal funding on top of that (since the state has to contribute a certain amount before the fed. contributes as well), and would have to close all but 2 or 3 DMV offices in the entire state (which would lead to revenue losses on top of the budget cuts).

So, if I understand you correctly - you are saying that 15% of the Arizona DOT budget runs:

* Almost all road repairs.
* All of the rest stops in the state.
* All but 2 or 3 DMV offices?

Somehow, this just doesn't seem possible to me.

I find that very hard to believe. If they are operating at such an efficient level, which I don't believe any govt. organization does or can, why isn't this being done everywhere?

Agreed.

[imac/cheese]

I think part of the problem, as illustrated by your post, is that many people seem to take it as an article of faith that government is inefficient, regardless of whether or not any particular program is or is not efficient.

This is absolutely true from my experiences at federal, state, and local levels of government. Many of the programs were run extremely efficiently and when the government privatized certain areas of service, the level of service dropped significantly and the cost of those services either stayed the same of dropped initially but then immediately crept back up to previous levels.

[itcheroni]

Willfully ignorant and wrong.



Point two:

Social security is broke? Are you insane? Social security has over $2.4 trillion in assets.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html

you can recite your mantra of "unfunded liabilities", but if you want to "fix" social security, it's mind bogglingly simple to do so. OK, we raise the tax from 10% to 10.5% and raise the retirement age from 67 to 68. Now social security is solvent probably through the end of the 21st century. Looks like it's out of balance again, raise the retirement age to 69. Man, that was tough.

There's a difference between wanting it to fail (your position) and its destiny to fail (which has no basis in math).

It depends what you consider an asset. If I write myself a check for a million dollars, and someday I will theoretically have a million dollars, does that make me a millionaire now? I personally only consider things I currently have or own to be assets. But of course the government is allowed to do things that private citizens can't do because they know what they're doing.

[it5five]

So, if I understand you correctly - you are saying that 15% of the Arizona DOT budget runs:

* Almost all road repairs.
* All of the rest stops in the state.
* All but 2 or 3 DMV offices?

Somehow, this just doesn't seem possible to me.


I don't get why not. Stripping ADOT of 15% of its budget would mean that ADOT would also lose federal funding on top of the 15% from the state budget. The state has to contribute a certain amount before the federal government contributes, and a 15% cut would put them below that amount. That's when you start to see a 60% reduction in workforce, closure of almost all DMV officers, closure of all rest stops, and more.

[miloblithe]

It depends what you consider an asset. If I write myself a check for a million dollars, and someday I will theoretically have a million dollars, does that make me a millionaire now? I personally only consider things I currently have or own to be assets. But of course the government is allowed to do things that private citizens can't do because they know what they're doing.

Terrible analogy.

In your scenario, you are writing a check to yourself that you cannot cash because you don't have a million dollars. So no, you don't have a million dollars.

The social security administration owns $2.4 million or so of treasury bonds. They own them because they bought them with the $2.4 million of surplus revenue they've had since their inception (see the link I provided). So it's not at all like the SSA wrote a check to themselves. They bought bonds from another entity (the treasury) with cash on hand.

[CaptMurdock]

CaptMurdock, we have some 20,000 gun control laws which do nothing to reduce violent crime with firearms. So there's a specific start, and if you want a specific law, consider the GCA of 1968.

We have laws against drunk driving and still people drive drunk. So, by your logic, there should be no law against drunk driving.

If I'm ranching in Montana, I am prevented by law from protection of my livestock from predation by grizzly bears or wolves.Build your fences better and quit whining.

If I'm farming in the Central Valley of California, I'm bankrupt because of federal law now determined as applicable to a minnow.
This sentence made absolutely no sense to me.

If a third party's pollution traverses your riverfront land and enters the river, you are held by EPA to be responsible for ending the pollution. That did indeed happen, and the landowner went to jail for two years since he did not have the estimated $300,000 necessary to pay for the cleanup. Uh, not that I don't trust you, but I want a link to this one. And that's not necessarily an indictment on that law, but rather a misapplication thereof.

If I have a business in an old building, I am forced by federal law to modify the building for crippled people's access--without regard for the profitability of my business and whether or not it's affordable.
Yes, God forbid some gimp wants to go through a door. In the old days, we knew what to do with such people...:rolleyes: Nice attitude.

Cities require that lawns be mowed, as Ned Fritz of the Sierra Club discovered at his Dallas, Texas, home. Can't have native grasses. Georgia law won't let me be insured on her policy in driving my wife's car with its Georgia registration (We're a two-home family; Farm Bureau Insurance). Some places, you can't park an extra car on your lawn.

IOW, government at all levels screws over you in some fashion or another, reducing your liberty.
These sound more like homeowner's assocations than Teh E-Ville Federal Gubmint. Now those people need to get a life.

Regardless, it's a government takeover of a private-sector matter, just as the takeover of home mortgages or the two automobile companies or the investment banks. Extensions of government power and control in areas in which it should not be involved. Reductions in freedoms of choice.
In the case of healthcare, the private sector had over twenty years to fix the problem. They had their chance. They've done squat. So that's just Hard Cheese, schnookums. Deal.

[macbook yes]

Ironically, we just learned about all these "temporary" programs that were only supposed to be aorund during the great depression. I consider myself moderate, but leaning conservative. Well, here goes:

Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)
$695 billion (+4.9%) - Social Security (-200 billion)
$453 billion (+6.6%) - Medicare (-100 billion)
$290 billion (+12.0%) - Medicaid (-20 billion)
$0 billion (-100%) - Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (-100%) - Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%) - Potential disaster costs (-6 billion)
$571 billion (-15.2%) - Other mandatory programs (-200 billion)
$164 billion (+18.0%) - Interest on National Debt (nothing you can really do about this at the moment)

[Desertrat]

"Originally Posted by Desertrat
CaptMurdock, we have some 20,000 gun control laws which do nothing to reduce violent crime with firearms. So there's a specific start, and if you want a specific law, consider the GCA of 1968.

We have laws against drunk driving and still people drive drunk. So, by your logic, there should be no law against drunk driving."

The laws concerning drunk driving help accomplish a stated goal as to controlling anti-social behavior on the part of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Gun control laws do not. Seriously foolish comparison, Capt.

"Quote:
If I'm ranching in Montana, I am prevented by law from protection of my livestock from predation by grizzly bears or wolves.

Build your fences better and quit whining."

Grizzlies break fences--but that's moot, since ranchers cannot fence the public land which they lease. Your comment is based upon ignorance, so I siggest first learning about a subject to at least some minimal extent before commenting.

"Quote:
If I'm farming in the Central Valley of California, I'm bankrupt because of federal law now determined as applicable to a minnow.

This sentence made absolutely no sense to me."

That's because you don't keep up with federal court decisions or environmental issues, I guess. Or the various details of major economic events. A federal court decreed that in order to possibly avoid harm to a species of minnow, no irrigation water could be pumped into the California Acqueduct or the Delta-Mendota Canal. This then led to the bankruptcy of irrigators in the Central Valley. No water, no crops. Some 40,000 farm workers have become unemployed. Farmers who once provided your food are now filing for bankruptcy. And the land is now more barren than the original desert...

I'll not bother with the rest of your sophistry.

[CaptMurdock]

That's because you don't keep up with federal court decisions or environmental issues, I guess.

No, I don't read Free Republic. 'Nuff Said.

I'll not bother with the rest of your sophistry.

Translation: "I got nothin'."

:p

[miloblithe]

Rat,

Didn't the government build the Delta-Mendota Canal? :)

Did that act restrict freedom too?

[Ugg]

Grizzlies break fences--but that's moot, since ranchers cannot fence the public land which they lease.

A federal court decreed that in order to possibly avoid harm to a species of minnow, no irrigation water could be pumped into the California Acqueduct or the Delta-Mendota Canal. This then led to the bankruptcy of irrigators in the Central Valley. No water, no crops. Some 40,000 farm workers have become unemployed. Farmers who once provided your food are now filing for bankruptcy. And the land is now more barren than the original desert...


As far as the first, don't you see the irony? You're suggesting the Federal Government shouldn't be able to set limits on land that it owns. The ranchers know when they sign the lease, most of which are below market rate, what the conditions are. I've no sympathy for them if they can't read.

Water rights in the West are a nightmare, I'll definitely agree with you on that one. However, water usage in California's central valley was out of control. Hopefully, the miraculous new water agreement that was signed by Arnie will help to alleviate some of the problems.

While the minnow was the primary factor in the case that you mentioned, nobody's simplistic enough to see it as the only factor. It's simply a small part of the bigger picture. Salmon, abalone and almost all other species in the Pacific coast fishery have been decimated by low water flows out of the Delta.

[IntheNet]

I often read many posts here from conservatives, and it's often clear what they're against and, in abstract and with less clarity, what they're for.

One of these talismanic ideas that comes up time and time again is the idea of 'small government'. So, this is a thread to explore what that could mean in practice, not some theoretical slogan.

Blue Velvet: The idea of small government is a long-standing conservative plank... understand that many of us conservatives were quite alarmed when, in 2007 and 2008, the last president began to grow the federal government. So our claims are quite bi-partisan actually, against both conservatives and liberals, in the frighteningly massive amount that our federal government has grown. Obama has wasted no time tripling our deficit and vastly expanding the role of the federal government at the expense of the taxpayer. Our belief - as conservatives - is quite simple: smaller government. Many of the things the federal government assumes are not driven by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore they should not be done. Health care is a good example. There is no federal mandate for it in the Constitution. It is an "assumed" duty the federal government is proceeding upon without Constitutional basis. So too, state governments assume duties not within state constitutions. They too should not be done. Smaller government yields more money returned to taxpayers that, in turn, yields a better economy. Bigger government yields less money in taxpayer hands and a weaker economy.

Thomas Jefferson (and Henry David Thoreau) were both quite perceptive when they observed "...that government governs best by governing least..." Both were right. Both are right. It is our belief as conservatives that limited government is best.

[Eraserhead]

Obama has wasted no time tripling our deficit and vastly expanding the role of the federal government at the expense of the taxpayer.

There's a small recession going on at the moment. A lot of countries have vastly increased their government spending.

The Chinese (who were the first major economy to leave the recession) have introduced a lot of new infrastructure products over the past year, they are building a lot of high speed (300km/h+) rail lines for example, and they left the recession first in 1Q 2009.

[Blue Velvet]

Many of the things the federal government assumes are not driven by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore they should not be done. Health care is a good example. There is no federal mandate for it in the Constitution. It is an "assumed" duty the federal government is proceeding upon without Constitutional basis.


I'd prefer not to see this thread derailed with specific discussions on healthcare as there are other threads in this forum that cover the issue, and I appreciate all conservatives who have posted in this thread outlining their views. Honestly, it's a relief to get away from the boring yelling about Fox News and the threads that proclaim short-term inconsequential 'victories' for one side or the other.

However, just using healthcare as a general example, would that not be covered in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, let alone the Preamble?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Is healthcare not part of the general welfare? And addressing your point about federal mandates, would you, for instance, abolish the National Parks Service? Is there a constitutional mandate for NASA or the Food and Drug Administration?

See, what I'm trying to understand here, is where principles meet politics and the subsequent impact on policy. It's one thing to say that you (in the general sense) would slash Social Security, but entirely another to explain how and why you'd do it to the people you represent. I'm also curious to understand how the concept of small, limited government equates with social conservatism where the power of government is leveraged to hold sway over acts of individual morality, e.g. drug use, abortion, gay rights etc.

At heart, I guess I'm also trying to tease out libertarian stands of conservatism from social conservatism so that I can get an idea of what conservatives see as the proper role of government, and also how conservatives see the notion of the public commons, without trying to project my ideas of what conservatism is on others.

[IntheNet]

I'm also curious to understand how the concept of small, limited government equates with social conservatism where the power of government is leveraged to hold sway over acts of individual morality, e.g. drug use, abortion, gay rights etc...

Since I am new herein, perhaps some background would be useful on a personal example of why I see limited [smaller] government. For starters, our current government is way too large; it (our government) never asks itself whether the current size is correct! Now the example =>

A few years ago I had to opportunity to visit a small Interior Department office; it dealt with Indian affairs matters. This particular office handled Indian affairs in a particular region or district (specifically on the east coast). Though there are still significant Indian tribe members present (Abenaki and remnants of Adirondack and Iroquois I believe) in this region, the real work in this district, in terms of Indian affairs, is handled at the state level. Even the folks in these federal offices admitted they have little work to do; yet they maintain their presence. Why? Largely to handle Congressional investigations at the federal level, if they occur. However, within the last few years, as the folks in this office freely admitted, they received no Congressional inquiries. So this entire office does largely nothing. The work is done at the state level (as it should be). Now I realize this is just one office, in one department, in the largess that is the federal government. But it is illustrative of the entire federal government, that grows larger every day, at citizen expense.

Yes I believe in small government. The federal government could shift half its size to the states, to be administered there. Further, the federal government has abandoned its role as civil servants - the federal government has become the nation's largest job employer. Our Founding Fathers did not want that.

[MacNut]

Small government really means spend less. Don't tax the people for frivolous programs when there is no way to pay for it. Government seems to think that just because there is money that it should be spent. Cutting is not a word they know how to say. It is all about spending.

In the governments eyes, raise taxes to pay for programs wether they work or not, not cut programs that we don't need.

[Tomorrow]

Is healthcare not part of the general welfare?

Very interesting question. I think it depends on whether you interpret this:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

to mean the general Welfare of the nation, or the general Welfare of its citizens as individuals. I suppose it's open to interpretation.

[callmemike20]

There's a small recession going on at the moment. A lot of countries have vastly increased their government spending.

The Chinese (who were the first major economy to leave the recession) have introduced a lot of new infrastructure products over the past year, they are building a lot of high speed (300km/h+) rail lines for example, and they left the recession first in 1Q 2009.

The problem is, our stimulus was full of crap. Less than 30% has been spent already. It was nothing more than a way to secure source spending by Obama for the next 4 years. If he isn't going to spend it on high quality projects, then don't spend it. All this pork and money just sitting around isn't helping our economy.

[Blue Velvet]

Very interesting question.


And just one of which has gone unanswered. If someone is going to claim X or Y is unconstitutional, then it helps if people explain why and puts that argument to the test.

It's also kinda interesting to see what, if any, conservative solutions exist for the myriad problems that the nation faces, and who here is prepared to make the case for them.

[Zyniker]

Cut this immensely. Quit meddling in all sorts of other countries and worry about what's going on back at home. Every other major country is doing just fine on a fraction of what we spend on defense, why can't we?

To answer your question succinctly: because those countries rely on our 'high' expenditures to supplement their low expenditures.

[Eraserhead]

To answer your question succinctly: because those countries rely on our 'high' expenditures to supplement their low expenditures.

How? American "adventures" (e.g. Iraq but also Afghanistan to a lesser extent) seem to make the world less safe.
The problem is, our stimulus was full of crap.

Like tax cuts, that's the Republicans fault though.

A few years ago I had to opportunity to visit a small Interior Department office; it dealt with Indian affairs matters.

That sounds like an embassy or a consulate, which surely means its run by the Indian government...

[Zyniker]

How? American "adventures" (e.g. Iraq but also Afghanistan to a lesser extent) seem to make the world less safe.
...

Would you make the same contention concerning South Korea? The security of Japan? The reassurances we are able to offer our allies in Eastern Europe (despite the weakening of that stance under the current administration)?
There are numerous other modern examples...and dozens if we choose to delve into history.

As for your less safe argument: your data? No new attacks at home...not a bad record, really.

[Eraserhead]

Would you make the same contention concerning South Korea? The security of Japan?

South Korea, sure maybe that's useful, but I'm pretty sure the Chinese and Japanese would be happy to help if necessary. Besides the South Koreans are so rich they should be able to afford their own security forces. Japan, I'm confused, who are they being defended against?

As for your less safe argument: your data?

The rather large security problems and numerous terrorist attacks in India and Pakistan.

The reassurances we are able to offer our allies in Eastern Europe (despite the weakening of that stance under the current administration)?

if they need the protection that should be our job.

[Zyniker]

...
The rather large security problems and numerous terrorist attacks in India and Pakistan.

Are you seriously going to contend that the US is to blame for the issues that exist in and between India and Pakistan?

[Zyniker]

...
That sounds like an embassy or a consulate, which surely means its run by the Indian government...

Only not: http://www.bia.gov/

[callmemike20]

Like tax cuts, that's the Republicans fault though.


I don't think you read my whole post.

Anyway, what's wrong with tax cuts? It stops helping the people who rely on the government? So what? They shouldn't rely on the government. They deserve to fail if thats the case. I want to keep my own damn money. I'll spend it as I see fit. I'll give to charities that would actually spend more of the money on the helping of others and not on a bunch of systems that don't even work.

Personally, I think you should get a page with your income tax form that allows you to pick where your money goes with a few exceptions (police, fire, etc).

[IntheNet]

Like tax cuts, that's the Republicans fault though

Yes Eraserhead; you're absolutely right here... tax cuts are "our fault" as Republicans! We take particular pains to return taxpayer money to taxpayers through tax cuts, thus stimulating the economy and giving citizens more of their money back. Our fault entirely! We take the blame wholeheartedly!

Seriously... you actually find fault with tax cuts?

You are aware that 2000 recession was successfully addressed with tax cuts, yielding an end to that recession period, very low unemployment (5-7%) for the next five fiscal years, and enhanced national productivity, with a great increase in GDP (in short a direct opposite to what is happening now economically speaking)?

[Eraserhead]

Only not: http://www.bia.gov/

Calling native Americans "Indians" (who actually live in a completely different country on the other side of the world from the US) was frankly embarrassingly ignorant 200+ years ago, hell you could even say it was ignorant in the early 1500's after we realised that the Americas weren't actually part of Asia.

That the US government uses such a term today really just makes them look very insensitive to one of their minorities.

Are you seriously going to contend that the US is to blame for the issues that exist in and between India and Pakistan?

Of course the US (and even the UK) aren't to blame for all the issues in the region. However the recent destabilisation of Pakistan and the large number of terrorist attacks in India (which don't just include the bombings in Mumbai last November) isn't really due to poor relations between India and Pakistan as they are actually pretty good at the moment.

[Eraserhead]

Yes Eraserhead; you're absolutely right here... tax cuts are "our fault" as Republicans! We take particular pains to return taxpayer money to taxpayers through tax cuts, thus stimulating the economy and giving citizens more of their money back. Our fault entirely! We take the blame wholeheartedly!

Seriously... you actually find fault with tax cuts?

Yes (source (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TPDVTNNQ) - premium content).

The Republicans prefer tax cuts, which have the advantage of delivering their punch almost instantly. The problem is that in tough times like these, people are likely to save rather than spend their tax gains especially if—as in this case—the cuts are strictly temporary.

[Tomorrow]

Calling native Americans "Indians" (who actually live in a completely different country on the other side of the world from the US) was frankly embarrassingly ignorant 200+ years ago, hell you could even say it was ignorant in the early 1500's after we realised that the Americas weren't actually part of Asia.

Yes, but even the term "Native American" isn't altogether accurate, in that I was born and raised here, and thus a "native." And I haven't been able to convince enough people that a more correct term would be "Indigenous American."

[PcBgone]

And just one of which has gone unanswered. If someone is going to claim X or Y is unconstitutional, then it helps if people explain why and puts that argument to the test.

It's also kinda interesting to see what, if any, conservative solutions exist for the myriad problems that the nation faces, and who here is prepared to make the case for them.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

I believe that the General Welfare of the United States deals specifically with the nation, not the individual. The entire sentence deals with government and its ability to govern the NATION, not the individual. Right before this statement, it specifically states "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense." Government is not here to pay yours or my debts. So it is talking specifically of the debt of the US, the word and continues this and says to provide the common defense. Of what? The US which is a combined thought of the debts as stated earlier. Following that, is another "and" which continues the thought of Government and general welfare.

[Eraserhead]

Yes, but even the term "Native American" isn't altogether accurate, in that I was born and raised here, and thus a "native." And I haven't been able to convince enough people that a more correct term would be "Indigenous American."

True. And it wasn't "embarrasingly ignorant" 200 years ago, just ignorant. I think that was a little hyperbolic :o.

[Eraserhead]

I believe that the General Welfare of the United States deals specifically with the nation, not the individual. The entire sentence deals with government and its ability to govern the NATION, not the individual.

So why offer free education? A government railway system? Government police? Government fire services?

[bobber205]

So why offer free education? A government railway system? Government police? Government fire services?

I think this image is appropriate.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r248/bobber205/111309.jpg

[Tesselator]

I think this image is appropriate.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r248/bobber205/111309.jpg


I agree with that image but I would clip off the top sarcastic part, fix the dates to be correct, and add the one or two hundred other in-between event steps that have taken the US from like, 1900 to where it is today: A militant, socialist, corporate-fascist state with strong police-state overtones. And poised to get A LOT worse in the next few years if they don't undo everything the Bush and Clinton administrations did (at least!).

I think it's a sign of one's knowledge and powers of reason that they are able to correctly identify the type of state (gov) that he or she lives in. Not being able to just means that person is out of touch with reality for whatever reasons: Bad education, non-functioning or partially-functioning brain, media brainwash, apathy, etc..