Ultimate power

[Thunderknuckles]

OTOH, the need to somewhat behave in order to be re-elected, may be all that keeps some of these folks from going completely off the rails.

Yes, I considered that as well. It is true but thought the wastefulness of the first term outweighed the issue.

On a related note, here's a list of some of the Amendments proposed by Congress since 1991:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html

[Little-Acorn]

All laws and regulations must expire in five years and must be re-enacted to remain in force.

So murder would have to be made illegal again every five years? Just as an example

Excellent idea with an excellent result.

Congress will be kept so busy re-enacting laws we actually need, they won't have time to micromanage the way they do now, passing miniscule laws to detemine toilet size, light bulb type, land zoning etc.

The Framers originally made lawmaking a very clumsy and cantankerous affair. Three very different groups (temporary citizen-legislators in the House, professional state-appointed politicians in the Senate, elector-chosen President) all had to agree, for something to become law. The reason they made it so clumsy, was beause they wanted a country governed by very few laws - the states and lower govts, and people themselves, could control all else.

Mandating a sunset date on ALL laws, would get us back toward that ideal.

[ConHog]

Excellent idea with an excellent result.

Congress will be kept so busy re-enacting laws we actually need, they won't have time to micromanage the way they do now, passing miniscule laws to detemine toilet size, light bulb type, land zoning etc.

The Framers originally made lawmaking a very clumsy and cantankerous affair. Three very different groups (temporary citizen-legislators in the House, professional state-appointed politicians in the Senate, elector-chosen President) all had to agree, for something to become law. The reason they made it so clumsy, was beause they wanted a country governed by very few laws - the states and lower govts, and people themselves, could control all else.

Mandating a sunset date on ALL laws, would get us back toward that ideal.

Excellent point.

Alternatively we could just mandate that Congress can't pass any laws during a calender year until each member has read a loud the entire US tax code live on CSpan.

That way we don't have to worry about any laws accidently expiring and not being renewed.

[Little-Acorn]

Yes, I considered that as well. It is true but thought the wastefulness of the first term outweighed the issue.

On a related note, here's a list of some of the Amendments proposed by Congress since 1991:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html

One of these has a hidden sting in the tail:

•To require a balanced budget without use of Social Security Trust Fund monies.

If that were to be adopted as an amendment to the Constitution, it would be the first time Social Security was even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. And thus, a heretofore unconstitutional program would become constitutional for the first time.

Aside from that, the only effect it would have, would be that every huge, wasteful program that would explode the deficit, would have the words "Social Security" included in the title, to trigger the exception named in this amendment. And they would get routinely passed, and no budget would ever balance. Just like today. There would be no real change, as a result of this amendment.

[ConHog]

One of these has a hidden sting in the tail:



If that were to be adopted as an amendment to the Constitution, it would be the first time Social Security was even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. And thus, a heretofore unconstitutional program would become constitutional for the first time.

Aside from that, the only effect it would have, would be that every huge, wasteful program that would explode the deficit, would have the words "Social Security" included in the title, to trigger the exception named in this amendment. And they would get routinely passed, and no budget would ever balance. Just like today. There would be no real change, as a result of this amendment.

True

which is why I proposed simply

balanced budget

if you want to count social security contribution as income, that is no problem, you must also count social security expenditures as expenses

Who among us when making out our personal budgets takes any money and says to themselves "okay this isn't REALLY income" but then goes out and spends it like it is?

That's just stupid.

[Little-Acorn]

An amendment with two sections:


1.) Automatic Tax Withholding from paychecks, is forbidden for all governments, whether Federal, State, or local. Taxpayers must directly pay all such taxes by sending or bringing checks, cash, or money orders to appropriate government offices (IRS etc.).

2.) The day on which all tax discrepancies must be resolved (presently April 15 of each year) is changed. Now it will be the Tuesday before each Presidential or Congressional General Election. In years when there is no such General Election, it will be the last Tuesday in October.

[Thunderknuckles]

2.) The day on which all tax discrepancies must be resolved (presently April 15 of each year) is changed. Now it will be the Tuesday before each Presidential or Congressional General Election. In years when there is no such General Election, it will be the last Tuesday in October.

LOL. Bravo

[ConHog]

An amendment with two sections:


1.) Automatic Tax Withholding from paychecks, is forbidden for all governments, whether Federal, State, or local. Taxpayers must directly pay all such taxes by sending or bringing checks, cash, or money orders to appropriate government offices (IRS etc.).

2.) The day on which all tax discrepancies must be resolved (presently April 15 of each year) is changed. Now it will be the Tuesday before each Presidential or Congressional General Election. In years when there is no such General Election, it will be the last Tuesday in October.

If were going that route, I'd burn the IRS building to the ground and go with a sales tax. No exemptions, no excuses, no "it's not fair to ________" , no refunds, no fucking NOTHING.

YOU BUY YOU PAY period.

A serious discussion would have to be made about rate.


but the latest data i can find suggests that taxpayers paid in roughly $900,000M dollars (2009) in income tax. written out that is $900,000,000,000

http://taxfoundation.org/article/sum...ome-tax-data-0

Here is an article claiming that American's spent $10.7T in that same time.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/31222...nd-their-money

writing that number out equates to $10,700,000,000,000,000. Thus it looks to me like were paying in about 1% of our overall spending in income tax.

Is my math right?


Seems like we could go with like oh, 5% sales tax and have more income for the government .

oh darn i just forgot, the "poor" are the ones doing most of that spending and we wouldn't want them to be paying anything to the government now would we?

[fj1200]

Is my math right?

I don't think so. The FairTax calculated a revenue neutral rate of 23%. Your other numbers don't seem right either.

[mundame]

True

which is why I proposed simply

balanced budget

if you want to count social security contribution as income, that is no problem, you must also count social security expenditures as expenses

Who among us when making out our personal budgets takes any money and says to themselves "okay this isn't REALLY income" but then goes out and spends it like it is?

That's just stupid.

It may be stupid but it will screw up your balanced budget because hiding huge expenses is normal government practice and it's why we're in deficit. That worthless George Bush took ten years of TWO wars completely off-budget and I think all the many wars are STILL off-budget under what's-his-face; no wonder we get our ratings lowered.

I would love a balanced budget, but without taking things off budget like Enron did with its Chewbacca funds and such, places to put huge money-losers, at least till the whole thing collapsed.

[Missileman]

Definitely line item veto. Plus a clause that any bill presented for a final vote by either chamber of Congress must list any "additions" (i.e. pork) clearly and for public view. So we could see which members added them and why.
Pork is favored by congressional delegates of both parties, in case you aren't aware.

There are a couple advantages to going with the one issue per bill route, including eliminating the need for a line item veto. Another immediate advantage is making it damned near impossible for the legislature to maintain their wasteful spending ways. The current system makes it way too easy for them to spend themselves silly.

[fj1200]

It may be stupid but it will screw up your balanced budget because hiding huge expenses is normal government practice and it's why we're in deficit. That worthless George Bush took ten years of TWO wars completely off-budget and I think all the many wars are STILL off-budget under what's-his-face; no wonder we get our ratings lowered.

I would love a balanced budget, but without taking things off budget like Enron did with its Chewbacca funds and such, places to put huge money-losers, at least till the whole thing collapsed.

Not exactly, they were just funded with supplemental spending bills. Your analogy is wrong, Enron didn't list certain transactions and investments on its balance sheet iirc whereas all government spending is voted on and funded.

[mundame]

Not exactly, they were just funded with supplemental spending bills. Your analogy is wrong, Enron didn't list certain transactions and investments on its balance sheet iirc whereas all government spending is voted on and funded.

It's off-budget, so the point is to hide the huge expenses of all the pointless, losing wars from the public.

I'd like a stop put to that. Wars are always, always what drive a nation into bankruptcy: it's the norm. It's happening to us. There are wars, wars, wars, and pretty soon the financial system collapses and there is revolution. The English, the French, the Russians, the Germans, everybody, over and over, through the centuries, again and again. Now we're doing it. Nobody ever learns. The "leaders" sure do love their pointless, losing wars that bankrupt the nation.

[fj1200]

It's off-budget, so the point is to hide the huge expenses of all the pointless, losing wars from the public.

I'd like a stop put to that. Wars are always, always what drive a nation into bankruptcy: it's the norm. It's happening to us. There are wars, wars, wars, and pretty soon the financial system collapses and there is revolution. The English, the French, the Russians, the Germans, everybody, over and over, through the centuries, again and again. Now we're doing it. Nobody ever learns. The "leaders" sure do love their pointless, losing wars that bankrupt the nation.

Yeaaaaaaaaaah No. The "ten years of wars" were a drop in the bucket budgetarily speaking. And to think the war expenses were hidden from the public is ridiculous. They had a whole separate proposal and vote/debate on the issue so it is almost MORE transparent than less. Our current yearly budget deficits are far more than all of the ten years of war.

[mundame]

At this point one of us should probably back up our claims with figures and citations.....

What are you thinking is the biggest contributor to our budget deficit problem?