Virtually everyone, the public, members of both political parties, economists, the media, members of the financial community...everyone...agrees that the U.S. must begin to cut spending and start to make some attempts, however modest, to balance the budget and reduce the national debt.

So what's going to happen? The GOP swept into comfortable control of the House of Representatives, where all budgets and spending plans are created. The Tea Party candidates were a big part of the defeat of the Democrats in the fall elections. Now's the time for the people who campaigned as fiscal conservatives to put their votes where their mouths were while campaigning for election. The President's Deficit Commission has issued it's report, with a number of very specific recommendations. Members of Congress are staying away from commenting or taking a position on the recommendations like a third rail--even the supposedly most fiscally conservative members of the Tea Party.

Here are five recommendations that the Deficit Commission made. They're not hard to understand...

1. Delayed retirement and reduced Social Security expense: A plan that would require Americans to retire at 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075.

2. More expensive gas: A proposal to raise the federal gas tax by 15 cents per gallon. The funds would go to whittle down the deficit and fund infrastructure projects. At the same time more expensive gas would drive Americans towards the use of more fuel efficient cars.

3. Simpler tax code: The plan would overhaul individual income taxes and corporate taxes, giving Congress the choice of reducing the top rate to as low as 23 percent and no higher than 29 percent. The lower the rate, the fewer the tax credits and deductions available.

4. Significantly reduced military spending: Tight "caps" would be imposed on all agency budgets adopted by Congress, but the plan includes a near-freeze on the Pentagon's budget.

5. Fewer, cheaper federal employees: A three-year freeze on federal worker pay is proposed, and the elimination of 200,000 workers from the federal payroll through attrition. (That sounds like a lot, but it's only 7.3% of the total federal payroll. And no federal worker would get laid off! All the reductions would come from normal attrition. Things should be so good in the private sector!)

Not too hard to understand, don't you think? If all were enacted, it would begin to take a small whack at the budget deficit, although any deficit at all would continue to add to the national debt.

How many of these things do you think the House of Representatives--now controlled by the GOP I remind you--will enact? Remember, these were the guys who were so obstructionist that many began to call them the "party of No!" Now they're firmly in control of the country's purse strings. What will they do?

You want my answer? Nothing! Because there is virtually no difference between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives or progressive liberals, the shrillest voices from both the left and the right, in their willingess to spend our money--and of that's not enough, all they can borrow from the Chinese!

We won't have to wait long to see what will happen. A vote on further increasing the limit on national debt and a budget for the federal government next year will happen in the next few months. Do you want to see what the real difference is between Republicans and Democrats, between progressive liberals and conservatives? Watch and see. I'm saying it's next to nothing!

Then you'll know for sure whether it does any good to vote for one party or the other.

Neither party has the guts to admit that the cuts necessary to even begin reducing the national deficit will cause another recession or worse. It has gone too far. The only way it can be solved is massive reductions in military and social security, medicare and medicaid.
If you reduce the current ongoing deficit of 1.4 trillion by 100 billion per year as purposed by the Republicans, it will take 256 years to balance the books. God help us.
JJ

Well, define "massive". I've heard statement *akin* to things like a 20% cut in Social Security benefits *completely solves* the insolvency problems (I forget the exact number). Think about that. The way the hysteria is today, they make you think that there will be NO money for ANY benefits when, in fact, it's not true. Sure there are problems, but it's not like the well is running totally dry with NO rain at all.

1.4 trillion per year.. which is our annual deficit.. that MASSIVE.
and if you only reduce it by 100 billion per year it takes 14 years to reduce it to zero and during that 14 years you still add 10 trillion to the national debt, raising it to 24 trillion, and if you then continue to pay 100 billion per year after you have a balanced budget it takes 240 years to pay it off, and add that 14 years it took to get to the balanced budget and that is 256 years..
AND worse yet.. that assumes the world as enough money to loan us to continue to float that debt for 256 years.. and worse yet.. it assumes all those nice lenders continue to lend to us for 256 years at the current historically low interest rates..
And here is the big problem... even if we get control of gov spending, all of the people who have been living off of it.. directly or indirectly, are in big trouble financially.... and that is many of us retired people.
What happens to all of those soldiers when we reduce the military where it needs to be? They enter a 16% real unemployment market, and of course we will have to pay them unemployment benefits for 99 weeks or longer.. etc etc.
And the good old fashioned solution of starting a war willl not work because we already have two of those going, and our credit line is coming to an end.

on the known issues that are costing us billions....the correction of which would reduce spending and not services or benefits.
Medicare paying more for equipment and services (sometimes 2-4 times) what anybody else would pay.
Medicare pays in advance to insurance companies that in turn keep the money invested to the tune of up to $500,000,000 per year in lost interest for the government.
There are far too many examples like this to attack first. But the easier solution that does not affect the politician, their special interest groups or their supporters is to reduce from the tax payer.

How about all the pork projects that have absolutely nothing to do with the unity, growth, security or defense of our country. Why are these untouchable.

Like the laying off of the firemen and the police in NJ.....always....ALWAYS...cut services to the tax payer.

How about a corporate survival approach? Start with a ZERO BASED budget. With priority make sure the services and the benefits to the tax payer are first and foremost and fully funded. Then by priority allow other budget line items that must provide vale to the preservation of our nations needs. The if there is any money left they can beat each other for their favorites.

And oh by the way during the zero based budgeting process, there would be no funding of anything beyond the revenue basis for the budget.

Until something akin to the above takes place I do not support cutting at the tax payer level first.

The above is not likely to happen as it is in conflict with the role of politicians to protect self first, special interest next, then party. In addition there is no business acumen or capability in the entirety of Washington DC.
And for all the partisans....the above is not aimed at any one party as it has been the same no matter who is in office. The only trend is that each successive administration get worse than the prior.

btk

Both parties do it.. I had several discussions with my sister who supported Bush... during his first 7 years.. that he never vetoed any spending.. or anything for that matter.... and started a new unfunded entitledment for elderly prescription drug program..
Maybe I was wrong.. maybe 300 years to pay it all off instead of ONLY 256 years.
JJ

You want my answer? Nothing! Because there is virtually no difference between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives or progressive liberals, the shrillest voices from both the left and the right.

In my opinion you are 100% wrong and I find it difficult to comprehend how anyone could come to that conclusion. Personally I don't like any politicians in any party but you are right in that congress does control the purse strings.

So lets not forget...

Democrats controlled BOTH houses from 1955 until 1980 (26 years).

From 1981 until 1987 the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats the House.

Democrats recaptured both houses in 87 and held them until 95 when the Republicans took both houses and held them until 2005.

The Democrats have been in control of congress for the last 4 years adding more debt in only the last two years than any other time in history.

The Republicans have the control of the House for, like what? 2 WEEKS!!!

Already they have been called a failure by this tread because they didn't automatically enact provisions for the control of the massive debt provided by the same Obama Democrat Administration that TRIPLED the deficit in 2 YEARS!!!!

HOLY MOLEY!!!

Can they have a little time to come up with their own recommendations and proposals to reduce OBAMA'S MASSIVE DEBT, before we castigate them.

Looking to the past, whether it be to the Bush years, or more recently when the Democrats were in charge accomplishes nothing. Giving the GOP a pass because they've only been back in the majority for a short time is an equally unproductive exercise.

What's more important to observe is what happens in the House of Representatives when they begin to vote on spending bills in the next couple of months. Then we'll find out whether there is any difference whatsoever between the political parties.

I still maintain there is none. They all spend like drunken sailors, whether they be Democrat or Republican. I hate to say it, but those that will ultimately "solve" our spending and debt problems won't even be Americans. They'll be the countries that hold our debt, mostly the Chinese. When that happens, think what's going on in Greece and Ireland and soon Portugal and others. That's what'll happen here.

It's not as though having Democrats claim Republicans are a failure after two weeks is any different from Republican who did the same to to Obama after a couple of weeks. It's the same partisan sewage, just coming from a different pipe.

Again I think you are 100% wrong. History is an important thing and just as important is to know who’s responsible for what, how we got here and how we can avoid going down the same road again. I’ll agree that both parties spend very irresponsibility but to say they are both the same is just incomprehensible to me. I don’t see how anyone can logically come to that conclusion other than to say it’s just pure political rhetoric which I suspect it is.

Congress controls the money. Facts are fact when it comes to who controlled the vast majority of it over the last 60 years (D) not to mention much of our legislation and bankrupt social programs as well.

I’m certainly not giving the Republications or Conservatives a free pass here but it’s as clear as day there is a vast difference between D’s and R’s, liberals and conservatives including their spending, legislation, regulations and over all view of the role of government. I can say with 100% certainty that Liberals in Washington are not for smaller government.

“The larger the Government, the smaller the people.”

Originally Posted by dklassen

...it’s as clear as day there is a vast difference between D’s and R’s, liberals and conservatives including their spending, legislation, regulations and over all view of the role of government. I can say with 100% certainty that Liberals in Washington are not for smaller government....

Over a longer period of time, you may be right. My assessment of the two political parties and how they spend our money is more the result of the last decade or so, with a particular emphasis on how I expect them to react the the very real and very serious financial crisis faced by this country (not the economic crisis, but the deficit-escalating debt crisis). Will they or won't they actually pass laws to reduce the size and cost of the federal government that is so obviously needed? The Democrats didn't when they had control of the House and my belief is that the Republicans won't either, regardless of what they say and what campaign promises they made, even though they now have every bit as much control as the Democrats did for the last several years.

But having said that the Democrats over a long period of time are for bigger government and more intrusion into people's lives, all I can say is that we elected them.

There's the opportunity to completely turn over the House and one-third of the Senate every two years. As you point out, the Democrats have held the majority for a pretty good proportion of the last several decades. So I guess all that can be concluded is that the people who elected them want bigger government and all the benefits and services that it provides. Some disagree with that for sure, but not enough over a long period of time to change the fundamental tone of our government.

Americans spoke pretty loudly in the 2010 elections. They continue to "speak" in responding to the myriad of polls and surveys done. But even though we've spoken and continue to speak, those that we elected don't seem to be responding. Maybe I'm hoping for too much too soon, but as I've said, I will not be surprised if the House, now under control of a different party with many new members, continues the pattern of spending--and the "big government that implies--in much the same way as their recent predecessors from the opposite party.

You may disagree with how our government has worked as an individual, that's your right in our democracy. But there haven't been enough other Americans with feelings and beliefs like your own to vote to replace those elected to Congress who will actually pass the laws to reduce the role government will play in our lives. Somehow, we continue to elect people to represent us who talk about accomplishing something, but then don't do it.

Then all that's left for us to do is carp about it in the Political Forum on TOTV. What a waste of time!