There is a trend that is flying under the radar which is very disturbing. Government is expanding in alarming proportions. Instead of tightening their belts they are creating needless jobs and hiring rapidly. Even Boston (liberal) TV station did an expose on it the other day.
Some agency that was created to work with business to improve energy efficiency, has doubled in size and their salaries once averaging in the $70,000 are now over $100,000.

It seems that getting a government job is like winning the lottery. They average double the private industry wages and their pensions are comparatively exorbitant.

Kahuna, as usual you present articulate and well defined viewpoints. Your background gives your posts significant credibility and are worth the read even if occasionally opinions diverge.

I'm on the run to a tee time but wanted to express another perspective. I believe the tax system itself (60,000 pages) is archaic, inefficient, unfair and contributes to the very issues you raise.

What are your views on abolishing the tax system in favor of a Flat Tax, Fair Tax or combination of both.

For perspective I use these simple definitions. The Flat Tax Taxes Income While the Fair Tax Taxes Consumption.

Anyone else feel free to jump in.

...but only if Congress REALLY simplifies the tax code, removing all the exceptions, deductions, credits, shelters, etc.

But what I like even better is the reinstitution of the 1990 Pay Go legislation. That basically requires Congress to demonstrate full funding of any and all spending legislation, essentially requiring a budget with no annual deficit, just like the states. Any legislator that runs on that combination of fiscal reforms would have my vote.

Understand that with as far out of control that Congress has gotten in spending our money, the reinstitution of Pay Go would really cause some serious belt-tightening. There would have to be massive cuts in government spending, which would effect each and every one of us.

For your reading pleasure;



http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/



Six reasons to downsize Federal Government:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/...al-government/

Originally Posted by Donna2

For your reading pleasure...

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/

Six reasons to downsize Federal Government:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/...al-government/

All these recommendations should be placed on the table, probably plus some others such as a reduction in the entitlements that all who participate on this forum enjoy. If our elected representativs really get serious about balancing the budget and reducing the national debt, it's going to hurt...all of us.

It will take a steel political will to refuse to participate in the demonstrations that are certain to occur. Just look at the TV today, when students all over the country are demonstrating because state's funding of education is being reduced at the same time their tuition is being dramatically increased. It is altogether possible that in order to return our country to fiscal balance, spending will have to be dramatically reduced, but taxes may have to be increased at the same time.

As a country, we have simply lived way beyond our means for too long to avoid the probability of both these actions. If we get our wish, we will have to have wills of steel and patience of saints to avoid resisting the obviously needed corrective actions.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

All these recommendations should be placed on the table, probably plus some others such as a reduction in the entitlements that all who participate on this forum enjoy. If our elected representativs really get serious about balancing the budget and reducing the national debt, it's going to hurt...all of us.

It will take a steel political will to refuse to participate in the demonstrations that are certain to occur. Just look at the TV today, when students all over the country are demonstrating because state's funding of education is being reduced at the same time their tuition is being dramatically increased. It is altogether possible that in order to return our country to fiscal balance, spending will have to be dramatically reduced, but taxes may have to be increased at the same time.

As a country, we have simply lived way beyond our means for too long to avoid the probability of both these actions. If we get our wish, we will have to have wills of steel and patience of saints to avoid resisting the obviously needed corrective actions.

Interesting. Do you believe that everyone in this country, every one, should pay their fair share? If 50% of the taxpayers are shouldering 96% of the tax burdens, should they be expected to pay more, less or stay the same? There are very many, myself included, who don't pay nearly enough and there are millions of free-loaders who pay nothing. Where do we begin?

VK said the following...

"But what I like even better is the reinstitution of the 1990 Pay Go legislation. That basically requires Congress to demonstrate full funding of any and all spending legislation, essentially requiring a budget with no annual deficit, just like the states. Any legislator that runs on that combination of fiscal reforms would have my vote."


Thought you might be interested in this editorial on that subject...

"When a White House statement refers to a "bedrock principle," it means something slushy and soft and not really a principle at all, but a gimmick, still one more fraud to fool the public, a joke of the kind that must keep presidential aides rolling on the floor in laughter at all the fools who cheer them on.

The "principle" referred to was what would bind Congress if it passed a pay-as-you go law: It could then "only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere." But when the legislation actually became law and Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky tried to have Congress observe its provisions, the Democrats were outraged and Vice President Joe Biden portrayed the Republican in one reported interview as inhumane.

"We are faced with calamity, and the Obama administration plays games with words while Congress cannot even offset new benefits with a $10 billion savings?

It's time to start worrying, fellow Americans. Really worrying."


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ud_104662.html

Originally Posted by Donna2

Interesting. Do you believe that everyone in this country, every one, should pay their fair share? If 50% of the taxpayers are shouldering 96% of the tax burdens, should they be expected to pay more, less or stay the same? There are very many, myself included, who don't pay nearly enough and there are millions of free-loaders who pay nothing. Where do we begin?

Yeah, I think everyone who has income should pay taxes. I think many more corporations should pay taxes--only about one-third of them pay any taxes currently. When the tax burden is increased, I think it needs to be increased to a greater degree on the wealthiest Americans than on the middle and lower classes, but everyone should pay some taxes. And I can't see anything wrong with increasing tax rates across-the-board. Our federal tax rates are currently very near the lowest they've ever been in the history of the income tax system. I see no reason why they shouldn't be increased in order to begin to repay the national debt created by our political leaders over the last decade or so. They can always be reduced in the future when the revenues are less critically needed.

I'm not buying the outmoded political theory that taxes need to be decreased in order to encourage economic growth. Like I said, taxes are near a historical low point right now, and no particular economic recovery is evident. In fact, I think it's pretty well accepted by economistsa that the crushing debt load on the country will be a greater inhibitor of future economic growth than almost any other factor.

But underlying all of this must be a program to reduce spending by the federal government. For lack of a better idea, I like the though of simply reinstituting the 1990 Pay-Go law. In essence, it prohibited any increase in government spending unless there was a concurrent reduction in sending somewhere else in the budget. I also think there needs to be a pretty dramatic across-the-board cut in the federal budget--something in the range of 10% or so. Businesses cut budgets like this all the time--why not the federal government? The recent "cut" announced by the administration was embarrassingly tiny--1/2% as I recall--and they tried to make a big deal of it.

Nope, we need to cut spending pretty harshly, and then enact a law that prevents spending from escalating out-of-control once again.

That's where I come from. And that's why I'd never be elected to Congress!

Well, business has been spooked for 2 years with all the radical proposes working their way around congress and this white house and the proposal is to raise taxes.

Yea, that should really instill confidence in our shaky climate and get the economic engine humming. Like throwing an anchor to a drowning man.