I don't see where you get that it's a "letter to the editor". It appears on WSJ's "Opinion Page".

There are many who believe that Cut Cap & Balance would have resulted in retention of our AAA Credit Rating.

Send me a copy of the Federal Budget and I'll get back to you on my recommended cuts.

Cuts? Well there are a few worthless departments we could eliminate like the dept of energy, education, the arts. We can trim the military, repeal the destructive Obamacare for starters.
I think that the most hard core defense people will agree that the military complex is out of hand. Let some of the freeloader countries protect their own land and people. With satellites and pilotless drones, we can scrap alot of equipment and keep only the pertinent hardware.
Well, I've named a few. Feel free to jump in here.

Now, about those entitlements....:D

Total BS yet again but a rather brilliant redirection away from those who are the truly destructive and irresponsible ones.

Yes VK, we can do arithmetic too. We earn X so we can only spend X. At least that's how it works for responsible people. Stop blaming the Tea Party.

We await your next mathematical formula...

Thanks
 

Thanks for at least thinking about the question. I wish there were more here who would take the time themselves.

The problem most people fail to grasp is the enormity of the fiscal problem we face. If we eliminated ALL the things you mentioned, it would only reduce deficit spending by a small amount. In fact if we eliminated ALL items in the discretionary budget--all the departments and programs that we know as "government", Homeland Security, Interior, Education, HUD, even the salaries for Congress and the executive branch--we'd still have a budget deficit of about $900 billion each year, which would be added to the national debt.

Obviously, we can't eliminate all discretionary expenditures. But you're absolutely correct when you say, "...what about those entitlements?" But what people don't realize is how deeply those entitlement programs will be cut to even come close to balancing the budget. I've said this before here..."the necessary cuts to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, VA insurance, etc. will truly be life-changing for all of us."

You totally miss one major point. More people working means more tax revenue to the government.

How about the penny plan? Roll back spending levels to 2008 and cut 1% across the board.

The Democrats won't even cut 1 penny out of every dollar.

THATS THE PROBLEM.

Opinion
 

That's where they publish letters to the editor of the paper.

Some "opinions" are published under the byline of the WSJ columnists. Others are published under a Letters To The Editor section within Opinion. The articles reflecting the opinion of the publication itself do not carry a byline nor are they signed. Those are published in the Review and Outlook section of the Opinion pages.

I took a hard look at Congressman Connie Mack's "penny plan" in another thread in this forum. It doesn't come close to balancing the budget. I can't figure out why he even proposed the bill, other than maybe to get some face time on TV. The Republican leaders in the House must have seen the errors in his arithmetic too, as they haven't let it see the light of day for a vote.

The "problem" you cite isn't just the Democrats, it's the whole Congress. NONE of them are willing to do any substantial cutting of spending. Didn't we just see that in the bill passed last week? After two months or wrangling the entire 535 members of Congress could only come up with $915 billion in cuts over 10 years, with the first cuts not beginning until 2014! (That's two elections from now!)

On an annual basis they were only able to come up with cuts of 2/10 of one percent of the federal budget.....To "balance" the budget would require spending cuts of about 42% of annual spending!

The biggest problem facing this Nation is the the people do not know the severity of the money problem, especially the younger section of our society.
During the Great Depression, peoples heads were not into electronic gadgets or sitting there watching television. They could not get their food stamp credit card to fill their food cupboards. Young people had responsibility at a very early age. They could "feel" being poor.
People today are poor but they don't have to feel it. Where children used to help around the farm-home, at 10 years old, the children of today do nothing and stay at home till they are over 35. You take away their iphone and they are depressed. Golly, oh my!!!

The only way this country or any country will survive is a total breakdown or at least some kind of rude awakening. We are too complacent. Poverty is described as having 2 cars, television, cell phones and plenty of food stamp groceries. There was a time when that would be described as being rich.
Some how we are going to have to suck it up. There will be a means-testing for social security and other entitlements. Government pensions will have to be brought in line with social security payments. Maybe we will have to stop importing and truly buy American products again. At least that will get us working again.

Anyways, it is raining outside and this is just a few of my idle thoughts.

Where IS this federal budget???? Has there BEEN a "federal budget" in the last 2.5 years??

What has the President brought to the table for that?

Rainy day reading
 

If we had the White House and a 60 vote majority in the Senate you'd see a balanced budget amendment and the required cuts to get things back under control. Thanks to the Tea Party pushing the issue.

My suggestion to those who voted Obama into office (you know who you are)... Wise up in 2012.

Meant "Spending"
 

Sorry, I used ther wrong term. The two months of partisan bickering between the 535 members of Congress recently produced proposed cuts of 2/10% of FY 2011 actual spending.

So now I ask:

Where is the federal budget for 2011, or 2010 for that matter?

You cannot blame this on the Tea Party. They've only been in Congress in numbers for 7 months, and their constituents sent them specifically to do something about this p*ss-poor federal finance mess.

The blame game has to stop.

"Some letters are printed under the byline of WSJ columnists?" Really? What kind of plagiarism is that? Doesn't sound right to me. That column had the name of 3 authors. A "gang letter" to the editor?

the rich
 

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2..._irs_calif.php
Do they really pay there share?

I will remind you that this President appointed a commission to study the tax code and make recomendations to fix it.....he ignored it TOTALLY !

Well before any tea party

A Laughable Answer
 

This post is long, but if it wasn't so tragic, it would be a fun read.
-------------
I was curious about the budget. I knew the President's budget proposal got zero votes of approval in the Senate, but I wondered where the "real" federal budget actually comes from?

The President's budget comes from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a unit of the Executive office of the President. In 2011 it had 529 employees and a budget of almost $93 million.

OMB used to be the source of the federal budget, which was then submitted for modification and approval by the Congress. Typically, their "adjustments" were increases to their favorite departments and programs. Once approved, it was then up to the Executive Branch, thru the various departments, to spend the budgeted funds.

That's the way it was until 1974, when Richard Nixon refused to spend the bloated amount of money approved in the Congress's re-do of his budget. That's when Congress created the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Like most government departments, it's grown over the years. In 2011, CBO had a budget of about $47 million and employed 250 people.

CBO assists the House and Senate Budget Committees, and the Congress more generally, by preparing reports and analyses. In accordance with the CBO's mandate to provide objective and impartial analysis, CBO's reports contain no policy recommendations.

So, like so many functions in the federal government, we have two very expensive budgeting organizations at the highest level of the government, both OMB and CBO, with a total cost to the taxpayers of almost $150 million. Wow! Thats a lot of beancounters, isn't it?

So back to the process. Here you go...

• The POTUS is obligated by law to begin the process by submitting his budget to the Congress early every year. OMB puts the budget proposal together for submission by the POTUS to Congress.

• With the assistance of CBO, the House and Senate Budget Committees begin consideration of President's budget proposals in February and March. Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the House and Senate Budget committees during this time. The Budget committees each submit a budget resolution by April 1. The House and Senate each consider those budget resolutions and are expected to pass them, possibly with amendments, by April 15. Budget resolutions specify funding levels for appropriations committees and subcommittees.

• Appropriations committees, starting with allocations in the budget resolution, put together appropriations bills, which may be considered in the House after May 15. Once appropriations committees pass their bills, they are considered by the House and Senate. A conference committee is typically required to resolve differences between House and Senate bills. Once a conference bill has passed both chambers of Congress, it is sent to the President, who may sign the bill or veto. If he signs, the budget becomes law.

So where's the federal budget we apparently haven't had for more than two years? You got me. All I know is that we're paying more than 750 beancounters almost $150 million to put one together for the 535 in the great halls of Congress to approve.

But I guess like a lot of stuff in Washington these days, it's all hung up in Congress. Without a budget agreed to in conference committee and approved by the House, Senate and POTUS, I guess the various appropriations committees put together spending bills without the guidance or constraints of any legally approved budget. Yikes! Talk about the fox in the henhouse!

The budget process has been the law of the land since 1921. A budget is required by law each year. I guess that means that even with $150 million worth of beancounters, the 535 members of Congress have decided to break the law their predecessors put on the books about 90 years ago and simply operate the country without a budget. How else could they spend so much money so quickly?

Does this all make you mad? Ahhh, maybe not as much as other dumb things that happen in Washington, but it's right up there.

Buco,as usual you didn't answer the question. Do they pay enough?

I am responsible for four different budgets at my job. Not only do I have to get them approved, but I have to manage those departments in such a way as to not exceed spending and hopefully find a way to bring in more revenue, etc, etc, etc. Since the downward spiral of our economy, that has become more difficult to do. However, my feet are held to the fire to accomplish those things, or risk being replaced. So, Village Kahuna, in light of what you have reported about the law being broken by not having a budget nor cutting spending, how do we fire these guys? Surely, there is something that can be done prior to an election. Since the fox is in the hen house, shouldn't we get him out before the next election, BEFORE all the chickens are devoured?

Don't Have A Clue
 

Short of a quick and bloodless coup d'état, I don't have a clue how to accomplish that.

The tax code needs to be reworked...no doubt about it.

And I said in my post...

"I will remind you that this President appointed a commission to study the tax code and make recomendations to fix it.....he ignored it TOTALLY !"

If you dont rework the tax code to address the problems, you are stuck with class warfare.

Please explain how that does not respond to your question ?

I am not into class warfare, as you obviously are, however I do think we need to rework the tax code.....that phrase, I know is boring to you folks...it does not make your class warfare point, even though it accomplishs what you want, I THINK....but sometimes I get the sense that you folks who talk this way want blood or something

How about don't vote them in to begin with?

I didn't put Obama in office... Did you?

In answer to the other stupid question. Yes, I think most people already pay their fair share... Considering about 50% don't pay any federal taxes at all including the illegal immigrants the left loves so much.

But it goes back to a simple concept liberals don't understand.

IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY TO GIVE AWAY!

Did you earn it? Why don't you give your own money away and stop advocating stealing other people's earnings.