Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I'm not trying to lump anyone with anyone. Our elected political leadership over a long time has gotten us into this financial mess. But the facts can't really be avoided. At the beginning of George Bush's first term the federal budget was not only balanced, but generating more revenue than was being spent. Alan Greenspan was very concerned that the national debt would actually be completely paid down in only a year or two and he was diligent in avoiding pointing out to Congress that they would actually have a lot more money to spend...because he believed that they would!

Eight years later, when Bush left office, the national debt was $10.7 trillion, the federal budget was creating year-over-year deficits that were growing dramatically, the economy was careening into recession, we were fighting two wars, and even the Republican candidate for President observed that Congress was "spending like drunken sailors". The national debt right now is about $12.6 trillion and economists project that it will grow to $14.6 trillion by 2014. Each year we are spending more than a trillion dollars than the government takes in in taxes. That deficit is growing each year.

For the first six years of Bush's term the Congress was controlled by the GOP, and for the final two and into the present, it's been the Democrats. And yes, the Democrats seem to be spending at a rate not seen during even the most profligate years of GOP controlled Congresses.

Those facts are unassailable. And they demonstrate what I've been trying to say--but folks like you seem to think I have a liberal agenda. Read that into my forewarnings what you wish. But the federal budget cannot be balanced with only cuts in spending. I've pointed out before that even if ALL spending by the federal government other than defense, Social Security, Medicare and the interest on the national debt was eliminated we would still be almost $1 trillion short of a balanced budget. Even if we then completely eliminated all spending by the Defense Department, we still wouldn't have a deficit-free budget.

Do you think I want to pay more taxes? No way. But I'm telling you all that the arithmetic tells us that taxes will have to be increased, and probably fairly substantially. The arithmetic shows that it's unavoidable.

Study the numbers yourselves, folks. It doesn't take a college degree in math. But to just keep ranting that by electing conservatives who will cut spending, the problem of the deficit and the national debt will be solved is just plain incorrect. BOTH the liberals and those who called themselves conservatives got us into this mess. That includes both George Bush as well as Barack Obama.

Read a recent statement by a well-known former GOP Presidential candidate who is known to be far more towards the conservative right than the middle, Pat Buchanan. In his column last month in the conservative online publication The American Cause entitled, "Obama's Problems--And Ours", he concludes his review of the shortcomings of several previous administrations and the Obama administration by saying...

"... in 2012, the party of Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul will have to tell the country how it proposes to end these wars without losing them, how to bring manufacturing back and how to cut spending by $1 trillion a year, if taxes are off the table.

That Republicans failed under George W. Bush few Republicans today deny. That Obama and his White House are failing today few Democrats will privately deny.

The question raised by the successive failures is whether either party has a cure for the maladies that afflict America. Or are those maladies beyond the power of politics to heal?

Have we become a people incapable of accepting the sacrifices previous generations made, and of producing leaders with the vision and strength of character that our leaders of old possessed?"

Again, I implore you all to look at the numbers, just as Pat Buchanan has. See if you can figure out how ANY candidate from ANY party can cut $1 trillion out of the federal budget...how ANY candidate or party can begin to resolve our fiscal crisis without raising taxes.

If you can find a way, please post your ideas here. We're headed for a trainwreck and there's no way any of us can get off. We keep changing engineers and one is worse than another.

You can read Buchanan's entire column at http://www.theamericancause.org/inde...t01returnid=29 Or, you can read all of his columns in The American Cause at http://www.theamericancause.org/index.php

You wrote a very long post without convincing evidence that we need to raise income taxes.

Look we need more revenues along with spending cuts to eliminate deficits. This is common sense.

It is also common sense that raising income tax rates and adding new taxes will reduce revenues.

It is also common sense that Liberals are aware of this, certainly clinton was. The reason Liberal Progressives now want to raise taxes is unrelated to revenues it is related to wealth distribution.

Again simply said When you raise income tax rates you reduce tax revenues and lose jobs, period, and you take resources away from the job producers.

Originally Posted by cashman

You wrote a very long post without convincing evidence that we need to raise income taxes.

Look we need more revenues along with spending cuts to eliminate deficits. This is common sense.

It is also common sense that raising income tax rates and adding new taxes will reduce revenues.

It is also common sense that Liberals are aware of this, certainly clinton was. The reason Liberal Progressives now want to raise taxes is unrelated to revenues it is related to wealth ditribution.

Again simply said When you raise income tax rates you reduce tax revenues and lose jobs, period and you take resources away from the job producers.

You wrote a very short post without convincing evidence or math showing us how you eliminate the deficit without raising taxes. Show us some assumptions on revenues and taxes and spending that eliminates or reduces the deficit without raising taxes and reducing entitlements. Show the math!!!!

Common Sense - Some people (such as the authors of Merriam-Webster Online) use the phrase to refer to beliefs or propositions that — in their opinion — most people would consider prudent and of sound judgment, without reliance on esoteric knowledge or study or research, but based upon what they see as knowledge held by people "in common".

Originally Posted by cashman

You wrote a very long post without convincing evidence that we need to raise income taxes.

I've posted so many analyses on the federal budget that my fingers tire from typing. I could do it again to reply to your criticism that I've haven't provided any evidence, but why should I bother? People will come up with other inane arguments why the analysis is wrong without providing any analytical proof themselves.

So here is a link to another thread that I posted here on TOTV which addresses your request for "evidence". If you differ with any of the facts or conclusions, let us all know. But if you do, please provide your own corroborating evidence, not just the standard rants that all we need to do is take back our government, go back to the way it was when the Constitution was written in 1776, get rid of the liberals, cut spending, join a tea party group, get rid of Reid and Pelosi, and yadda yadda. The problem is a lot more serious than can be resolved with a bunch of soundbite-sized hooey.

Here, argue with these facts...come up with a plan...let us know what it is...put some numbers behind your ideas. Don't call it either a liberal or a conservative plan. I'll settle for any kind of a plan. Just let us know how you would go about balancing the budget and beginning to pay down the almost $13 trillion we owe to other people who financed our spending.

Budgetary Perspective

Originally Posted by Donna2

...Any other ideas on how to solve our money problems?...

OK, here's one that's different from either cutting spending or raising taxes, the traditional ways of balancing a budget.

How about privatizing several government-provided services?

George Bush had that idea with regard to letting people invest on Wall Street rather than continue Social Security in the same form it had been for years. We all know how flat on it's face that idea fell.

What about privatizing some of the following government functions? The idea is that decisions regarding the level of service that would be provided as well as the funding of the cost of the service would become the responsibility of the private sector. I present this list, a very abbreviated list, not because the elimination of their cost from the federal budget would have meaningful impact, but rather just an idea on how the cost of certain functions could be eliminated from government funding. So, in no particular order of importance...

• Let go back to the Bush idea of privatizing Social Security. Instead of the government guaranteeing some sort of income for the lifetime of the recipients, the government would make a once a year contribution to a fund which would then be owned and managed by the beneficiary. The contribution would be calculated using a discount rate comparable to a reasonable investment rate of return, which should provide the beneficiary with income until his/her actuarial life expectancy. While this plan would shift all of the risk to the individual, it would also remove the obligation of the government to meet the increased costs that come from extended life expectancies and inflation. People might not like to assume such risks, but that is the true free market.

• How about privatizing Medicare and VA health insurance? There is a groundswell of resistance to government-run healthcare, so shifting health insurance totally to the private sector should be a political win-win. We could simply flip-flop the party paying the premium and the insurer. The government could provide each Medicare-eliglible person or veteran with a stipend in the amount of the Medicare/VA premium they currently pay. Then the individuals could go into the private insurance market and buy whatever kind of policy they could get for that amount. The government would have no further responsibility to pay healthcare bills and would be indifferent to the inflation of healthcare costs if their rate of inflation was grossly more than the CPI. The stipend wouldn't even have to be a cash payment to individuals--it could be provided in the form of a tax deduction or a tax credit. But to keep people from simply taking the stipend and not buying insurance with it, the rules requiring hospitals to provide emergency room care to people who have no insurance would be changed. If someone who is Medicare-eligible under my proposed plan attempts to get ER service but has failed to buy insurance, he/she would be turned away. That shifts the responsibility to the individual and removes the cost of the uninsured having to be borne by the rest of us. For Medicare eligible people--no insurance, no healthcare, a pure free market proposition.

• Privatize the air traffic control system. Why is the government in this business anyway? The beneficiaries are the airlines flying in U.S. airspace. Let a private company be formed to provide the service and let them negotiate with the airlines for the level of service they desire and what they might be willing to pay for it.

• Eliminate all government funding for university research. Too many colleges are too reliant on government funding to make their budgets work. Colleges may have to downsize and a few might have to close as the result of the withdrawal of such funding, but why should the federal government be keeping inefficient colleges open with public funds anyway?

• Eliminate the National Highway & Transportation Safety agency. Why do we need this oversight of car manufacturers? Based on the level of recalls, it doesn't seem to have worked very well anyway. And why do we have to have a "ready team" to go visit every crash that occurs involving airplanes or trains? It seems to me that the public would determine soon enough which airlines or railroads were unsafe and stop using them. Let the free market determine these safety issues. If the airlines or railroads or car companies want to continue this sort of oversight on themselves, let them form a company to provide it and pay for it themselves.

• Sell off the national parks to private investors. The investors could operate those parks which enjoy large visitation frequency for a profit. Public lands that are relatively vacant and unvisited could be developed, mined or explored for natural resources.

• Sell all government-owned buildings to private investors. The government could then rent space in the buildings rather than to continue to assume the risks and costs associated with building ownership.

• Eliminate all agricultural subsidies of any kind. The time has come for American farmers to either compete effectively in the world commodity markets or go out of business. Continuing to subsidize farmers is a politically-driven policy that does little more than disguise our non-competitiveness in the free markets.

• Privatize NASA completely. There have been some steps in this direction anyway, but what purpose is served by the public continuing to fund a space exploration program? If some value is created, the private sector and the free market will assure that it continues. If the free market sees no benefit, the space program will simply die a natural death.

• Eliminate any funding for an interstate highway system or local transportation of any kind. Why is the federal government funding the construction of local highways, bridgs, tunnels, light rail or subway systems? If they are needed, let local governments or the private sector finance them. If that means there aren't enough people to finance highways and bridges in areas of low population--the plains states, the Texas panhandle, the southwest desert, the mountain states--so be it. Why should the federal government be paying for those facilities anyway?

• Sell off Amtrak to private investors. Again, why should the federal government be providing funding of any sort to a railway system which has proven to be inefficient and non-competitive with other forms of transportation? If no private investor(s) are willing to buy Amtrak assets and its business, then the free market will have determined it's value.

• Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That has been partially done already. But the federal government stands behind both the companies and particularly the debt they issue to stay in business. Sell the businesses off to private investors and eliminate any government guarantees of their debt. Let the housing industry compete for capital just like any other business in the U.S. Why should every American be subsidized to buy a house by the federal government?

• Eliminate FDIC insurance of bank deposits. Too many banks survive solely because the public deposits their money with them only because they know the federal government will make good on their deposits even if the bank is badly managed. Why should the government take this risk? Let the public figure out which banks are well-managed and which are not. There may be some bank failures and some people will lose their savings, but in time the free market will identify the remaining reliable and well-managed banks where depositors can feel safe placing their savings without the guarantee of the federal government.

So, there you go. There's some ideas that could provide meaningful savings to federal government spending without either slashing spending or increasing taxes. While this is a long post, the list of other potential government services that could be privatized is a whole lot longer, I'm certain.

Anyone got any other ideas? What do you think?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

OK, here's one that's different from either cutting spending or raising taxes, the traditional ways of balancing a budget.

How about privatizing several government-provided services?

George Bush had that idea with regard to letting people invest on Wall Street rather than continue Social Security in the same form it had been for years. We all know how flat on it's face that idea fell.

What about privatizing some of the following government functions? The idea is that decisions regarding the level of service that would be provided as well as the funding of the cost of the service would become the responsibility of the private sector. I present this list, a very abbreviated list, not because the elimination of their cost from the federal budget would have meaningful impact, but rather just an idea on how the cost of certain functions could be eliminated from government funding. So, in no particular order of importance...

• Let go back to the Bush idea of privatizing Social Security. Instead of the government guaranteeing some sort of income for the lifetime of the recipients, the government would make a once a year contribution to a fund which would then be owned and managed by the beneficiary. The contribution would be calculated using a discount rate comparable to a reasonable investment rate of return, which should provide the beneficiary with income until his/her actuarial life expectancy. While this plan would shift all of the risk to the individual, it would also remove the obligation of the government to meet the increased costs that come from extended life expectancies and inflation. People might not like to assume such risks, but that is the true free market.

• How about privatizing Medicare and VA health insurance? There is a groundswell of resistance to government-run healthcare, so shifting health insurance totally to the private sector should be a political win-win. We could simply flip-flop the party paying the premium and the insurer. The government could provide each Medicare-eliglible person or veteran with a stipend in the amount of the Medicare/VA premium they currently pay. Then the individuals could go into the private insurance market and buy whatever kind of policy they could get for that amount. The government would have no further responsibility to pay healthcare bills and would be indifferent to the inflation of healthcare costs if their rate of inflation was grossly more than the CPI. The stipend wouldn't even have to be a cash payment to individuals--it could be provided in the form of a tax deduction or a tax credit. But to keep people from simply taking the stipend and not buying insurance with it, the rules requiring hospitals to provide emergency room care to people who have no insurance would be changed. If someone who is Medicare-eligible under my proposed plan attempts to get ER service but has failed to buy insurance, he/she would be turned away. That shifts the responsibility to the individual and removes the cost of the uninsured having to be borne by the rest of us. For Medicare eligible people--no insurance, no healthcare, a pure free market proposition.

• Privatize the air traffic control system. Why is the government in this business anyway? The beneficiaries are the airlines flying in U.S. airspace. Let a private company be formed to provide the service and let them negotiate with the airlines for the level of service they desire and what they might be willing to pay for it.

• Eliminate all government funding for university research. Too many colleges are too reliant on government funding to make their budgets work. Colleges may have to downsize and a few might have to close as the result of the withdrawal of such funding, but why should the federal government be keeping inefficient colleges open with public funds anyway?

• Eliminate the National Highway & Transportation Safety agency. Why do we need this oversight of car manufacturers? Based on the level of recalls, it doesn't seem to have worked very well anyway. And why do we have to have a "ready team" to go visit every crash that occurs involving airplanes or trains? It seems to me that the public would determine soon enough which airlines or railroads were unsafe and stop using them. Let the free market determine these safety issues. If the airlines or railroads or car companies want to continue this sort of oversight on themselves, let them form a company to provide it and pay for it themselves.

• Sell off the national parks to private investors. The investors could operate those parks which enjoy large visitation frequency for a profit. Public lands that are relatively vacant and unvisited could be developed, mined or explored for natural resources.

• Sell all government-owned buildings to private investors. The government could then rent space in the buildings rather than to continue to assume the risks and costs associated with building ownership.

• Eliminate all agricultural subsidies of any kind. The time has come for American farmers to either compete effectively in the world commodity markets or go out of business. Continuing to subsidize farmers is a politically-driven policy that does little more than disguise our non-competitiveness in the free markets.

• Privatize NASA completely. There have been some steps in this direction anyway, but what purpose is served by the public continuing to fund a space exploration program? If some value is created, the private sector and the free market will assure that it continues. If the free market sees no benefit, the space program will simply die a natural death.

• Eliminate any funding for an interstate highway system or local transportation of any kind. Why is the federal government funding the construction of local highways, bridgs, tunnels, light rail or subway systems? If they are needed, let local governments or the private sector finance them. If that means there aren't enough people to finance highways and bridges in areas of low population--the plains states, the Texas panhandle, the southwest desert, the mountain states--so be it. Why should the federal government be paying for those facilities anyway?

• Sell off Amtrak to private investors. Again, why should the federal government be providing funding of any sort to a railway system which has proven to be inefficient and non-competitive with other forms of transportation? If no private investor(s) are willing to buy Amtrak assets and its business, then the free market will have determined it's value.

• Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That has been partially done already. But the federal government stands behind both the companies and particularly the debt they issue to stay in business. Sell the businesses off to private investors and eliminate any government guarantees of their debt. Let the housing industry compete for capital just like any other business in the U.S. Why should every American be subsidized to buy a house by the federal government?

• Eliminate FDIC insurance of bank deposits. Too many banks survive solely because the public deposits their money with them only because they know the federal government will make good on their deposits even if the bank is badly managed. Why should the government take this risk? Let the public figure out which banks are well-managed and which are not. There may be some bank failures and some people will lose their savings, but in time the free market will identify the remaining reliable and well-managed banks where depositors can feel safe placing their savings without the guarantee of the federal government.

So, there you go. There's some ideas that could provide meaningful savings to federal government spending without either slashing spending or increasing taxes. While this is a long post, the list of other potential government services that could be privatized is a whole lot longer, I'm certain.

Anyone got any other ideas? What do you think?

IAUDIT VK has just given you my answer. Well done VK.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I've posted so many analyses on the federal budget that my fingers tire from typing. I could do it again to reply to your criticism that I've haven't provided any evidence, but why should I bother? People will come up with other inane arguments why the analysis is wrong without providing any analytical proof themselves.

So here is a link to another thread that I posted here on TOTV which addresses your request for "evidence". If you differ with any of the facts or conclusions, let us all know. But if you do, please provide your own corroborating evidence, not just the standard rants that all we need to do is take back our government, go back to the way it was when the Constitution was written in 1776, get rid of the liberals, cut spending, join a tea party group, get rid of Reid and Pelosi, and yadda yadda. The problem is a lot more serious than can be resolved with a bunch of soundbite-sized hooey.

Here, argue with these facts...come up with a plan...let us know what it is...put some numbers behind your ideas. Don't call it either a liberal or a conservative plan. I'll settle for any kind of a plan. Just let us know how you would go about balancing the budget and beginning to pay down the almost $13 trillion we owe to other people who financed our spending.

Budgetary Perspective

Repeating old postings won't make me answer differently than I did on March 14 because my consevative values do not change.

without raising taxes? Reduced spending sufficient to offset ANY new programs or initiatives.
Only those in Washington and their supporters continue to accept new programs as additive to an already bleeding bottom line.
This is not an Obama phenomonem, nor is it in the ever popular lump it all in again on Bush era.
It has been the operating mode for far too many years.

The only way to reduce the deficit is to stop the spending. Very simple, obvious answer that does not seem to garner ANY interest from any administration including the current one that is setting records with it's monstrous spending programs with only words (rarely) about where the funding will come from.

The most reliable, guaranteed way to fix an ailing business is to strangle spending to a minimum. A very unpopular approach even in corporate America, where at least some have accountability and responsibility and a concept of an income statement. In Washington there is no accountability or responsibility to reduce spending....and there certainly is no concept of an income statement.

It is a very simple concept....but foreign to wealthy political lawmakers who have no knowledge or desire to implement.

btk

I'll demonstrate my opposition to the 'privatize everything' idea with one example.

Roosevelt started our national parks SPECIFICALLY because of the risk of corporate exploitation. Corporations have no loyalty other than to the stockholder. Privatize the parks and, even if they still exist, only the most profitable 'guests' will be allowed in.

Carry that attitude to other areas. Do you want Veterans who are no longer profitable to be kicked off the VA plans? Do you want gridlock when several million more cars are added to our rush hours when subways, busses and Amtrak suddenly stop serving people and selling off assets to benefit the shareholders?

Even though I make a decent living, that's not the America I want to live in.

NASA, I think, has the right idea. They set the rules and are contracting out to see if they can get services more efficiently (I'm a big fan of SpaceX, as an example). The flip side of that is MY job where the company that employs me makes more money from the government than I do. In other words, the government pays $X/year for my position. Of that money, I see less than half (less still after taxes) as my employer takes over 50%. (In software contracting this is NOT the norm) This is why the government is eventually converting my got to 'organic' - i.e. to be filled by a civilian employee of the Air Force. They're going to save money.

Privatization is a good thing in many cases - let's just not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Originally Posted by cashman

Repeating old postings won't make me answer differently than I did on March 14 because my consevative values do not change.

Fair enough. You have conservative values, but no plan for solving the budget crisis and reducing the national debt. Got it.

Originally Posted by billethkid

...The only way to reduce the deficit is to stop the spending....strangle spending to a minimum....It is a very simple concept....

You're right. Strangling spending is a way to reduce the deficit. But there's no way that will actually result in a deficit-free budget.

Unfortunately, even if all discretionary government spending were eliminated, we would still generate substantial annual deficits and additions to the national debt.

The federal budget for FY 2011 is $3.6 trillion. Tax revenues amount to $2.4 trillion. The resulting deficit is $1.2 trillion.

The total of "discretionary" items in the budget is $1.4 trillion. That is, less than half of federal spending is truly controlled by annual appropriations bills. The balance of $2.2 trillion must be spent as the result of prior legislation, such as for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TARP, and the recently-approved jobs bill.

So, very simply--I'm repeating this yet another time--in order to balance the annual federal budget, virtually ALL discretionary government spending would have to be eliminated--86% of the total discretionary budget. I should point out that the largest item in the discretionary budget is that of the Defense Department which is $549 billion of the $1.4 trillion discretionary budget. So using a ridiculous example to illustrate the problem, if ALL discretionary government spending was eliminated and the balance used to only fund the Defense Department, even defense would have to take a 64% cut to it's budget.

Obviously, that leaves the Congress to consider changes in existing laws to reduce "mandatory" budget items--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the interest on the national debt are the largest items. Or, if they don't have the guts to slash those expenses, then the only alternative is to raise taxes.

The math isn't hard--it's only arithmetic.

Originally Posted by djplong

...that's not the America I want to live in.

I don't disagree with you at all, DJP. As much as anything, I posted that list to demonstrate how much balancing the federal budget will affect our way of life. If we don't do something like "privatize", then we're back to trying to solve the problem with cutting expenses and/or raising taxes.

In another post right above, I demonstrated the impossibiity of balancing the budget by cutting costs. I've concluded that there is no other alternative to solving our problem than a combination of deep spending cuts--including cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--plus some substantial tax increases.

I can't see any other way out.

I understand that some national parks, I don't know where they are, no longer accept the national park Golden Passport, or whatever it is called. Those parks at the ones managed by contractors.

There it starts.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I don't disagree with you at all, DJP. As much as anything, I posted that list to demonstrate how much balancing the federal budget will affect our way of life. If we don't do something like "privatize", then we're back to trying to solve the problem with cutting expenses and/or raising taxes.

In another post right above, I demonstrated the impossibiity of balancing the budget by cutting costs. I've concluded that there is no other alternative to solving our problem than a combination of deep spending cuts--including cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--plus some substantial tax increases.

I can't see any other way out.

By reducing wages paid to government employees. If government employees earned the same percentage as private sector employees, 339 billion dollars could be saved annually. No small potatoes. Seems there is a privileged class here in America?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ctions_opinion

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Fair enough. You have conservative values, but no plan for solving the budget crisis and reducing the national debt. Got it.

I have it.

Cut spending across the board and take the lumps.

When a business is dying does it raise its prices (as in tax increases) or does it slash its costs and prices.

I am getting the idea that you just like to disagree and write lots of quotes from left wingers with a little carrot thrown in once in awhile to confuse we conservatives.

I honestly think part of our problem is our overall method of taxation. It's a "divide and conquer" approach. I pay tazes to so many different jurisdictions, it's laughable. I pay more KINDS of taxes than I can shake a stick at. Each one of these agencies and jurisdictions have their own set of rules, their own legions of employees and their own bank of lawyers. We're bleeding to death from papercuts.

We look at Europe and see that they pay higher income and fuel taxes. But how many other taxes do they pay - and to how many agencies? How much is lost due to 'overhead'?

Off the top of my head, I pay Federal income, FICA and Medicare taxes. Then there's state income tax, property tax, sales (when I'm in MA) and meals taxes. Excise taxes, registration fees, gas taxes, tolls, innumerable taxes piled on my electric and phone bills, travel taxes piled on my airline tickets for my daughter to visit me, hotel taxes, car rental taxes, "user fees", "imputed income" taxes on my life insurance premiums. If I save money I may have capital gains taxes. If I sell my house or buy one I have transfer taxes, municipal and state fees, recording fees. Unless they're included in my property taxes I may have taxes on my water and sewer bills (though in my town they're not). IN NH they just passed (and are about to repeal) a tax on campground sites, similar to the hotel rooms tax. If I ran a business here in NH, I might be subject to the Business Profits Tax. If I did exporting or importing, I'd have various treaties and tariffs that I'd have to abide by. In MA and other states, I can be taxed just on the things I OWN - "personal property tax", so that I keep paying and paying taxes on stuff I already bought.

Again, this is just off the top of my head!

We need top-to-bottom, coast-to-coast, manufacturer-to-retail TAX REFORM. We need to streamline the number and types of taxes and the methodology for collecting them.

How many people are in favor of the Flat Tax? I know I am. How many people would consider switching over from an Income Tax to a National Sales Tax? A *simple*, FLAT, easy-to-collect tax that makes it REALLY difficult to cheat at taxes (to say nothing of doing away with April 15th for ordinary citizens).

I'd at least consider it. It's clear that our current system of "we'll raise THEIR taxes so YOU'RE ok" followed up by the reverse the next time around - is NOT working. The legislooters divide us up into little pidgeonholes so that one group can be hit without it hurting the politician in the next election. How many times have car rental and "airport access fee" rates along with hotel room taxes been hiked with their 'sales pitch' being "it'll hit OUT OF STATE people"?

Reform the tax structure in this country. Make the net WIDE so that you can't escape with your little Special Interest Clause. Pass a Constitutional Ammendment to force a balanced budget with VERY few exceptions. MAKE us live within our means.