Posted on Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 10:27 a.m.
Debt reduction panel needs to drop the politics and fix the problem
By Letters to the Editor
To the members of the Congressional Debt Reduction Committee: We understand that you were appointed for a political reason. Probably several. And you all have a political agenda -- spoken or unspoken, assigned or personal. Fine. This is after all politics.
But the American people need you to devise and propose a solution. And we don’t need a solution that adheres to any particular political ideology. We need a solution that fixes the problem. You have an opportunity to do something great. Are there any great people among you who are up to the task? America and the world hope so.
Albert R. Fillion Ann Arbor
Comments
Tru2Blu76
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 : 1:49 a.m.
Everyone must have missed the television network (ABC?) news show where a few ordinary people volunteered to come up with a budget that would eliminate the debt and ensure continued government services. Impossible, right? Well - they did it in just a few minutes and their suggestions were those KNOWN to be valid! Across the board tax increase - eliminating everyone - everyone above poverty level- from "exemption." As we all know: the true shirkers are the top 10% of the wealth pyramid. Essentially, the "old" tax rates that the United States had until the Reagan Era would have to be... only partially restored. Remember: we had NO recessions to equal the one we have today during that "crushing tax period." In fact: 1945 through 1982 was the period when the U.S. was truly at the top in every category. Since the Republican "plan" (myth) is really to just pay back the people who paid for their campaigns and promised do-nothing jobs after they leave office (with great retirement and medical plans paid for by us): lets just toss that "plan" out and replace it with some of the old, proven budget plans of the past. In addition: that would mean weaning the Pentagon from the Republican Teat of Eternal Funding For Everything You Want. That alone would cut a couple hundred BILLION per year from govt. expenditures. I also agree that both Republicans and Democrats operate dishonestly in commission of their duty TO US. A new system of campaign funding must be enforced: eliminate all private contributions, tax every tax payer a small amount (say under $60): that would be an amount greater than all the campaign funds created in the last general election. Any short falls would be taken from the coffers of the parties whose candidates lacked money. In other words: every candidate would get funding appropriate to the office they sought. Part of that would come out of the wallets of party members.
leaguebus
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 9:22 p.m.
Why should the Republicans cooperate? They didn't cooperate on anything since Obama was elected, why now? It actually won them an election. Their agenda is simple, get Obama out at all costs.Once Obama won the election, the issue of his birth has been brought up over and over. His patriotism has been questioned over and over. His ordering the killing of Bin Laden has been criticized. Even his vacation was taken to task. So far so good for the Republicans. Wait until his jobs proposals hit next month. Everyone knows we need some kind of stimulus program, but what are the chances of the "cut the budget at all costs" Republicans going for this? Slim to none.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 1:27 a.m.
Don Bee: Can you cite the source of that quote? If not, it's just made up. But here's a fact with a cite: Republicans in the 110th Congress used the filibuster a record number of times. Source: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/gop-filibuster-record-rep_n_480722.html</a> And as Senator Jim Demint made clear, the point of all of this was to defeat Obama, to make him look bad. Anyone who was paying attention during the health care debate would know, Democrats made huge efforts to get Snowe, Collins, Grassley, Graham, and others on board. And as Slate makes clear, MANY Republican-sponsored amendments were included in the final version of the Affordable Care Act, yet none voted for it? Why was that? So they could make it look like it was a bill forged solely by Democrats for the lemmings who do not question what they hear on Fox News, when the truth was quite different from that. Source: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/</a> In sum: there was not anyone on the other side of the aisle who was willing to work with the administration, and certainly not to vote with it. But the lemmings keep on believin' Good Night and Good Luck
DonBee
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 12:49 a.m.
leaguebus - There is a famous quote from the Democrats right after the election "We won, get over it" ... and at that point, it seems from the outside that they stopped trying to work with the republicans. After all they could do anything they wanted. I now think that tactic is backfiring on everyone.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 12:21 a.m.
And when the uprising in Libya started, they accused him of doing too little. Once he did something, they accused him of doing too much. It's not about having a coherent policy. It's about perpetual war on the president. Good Night and Good Luck
Gorc
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 8:18 p.m.
In case you were wondering...the tax code is over 70,000 pages now (no joke).
1959Viking
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 4:53 p.m.
Agreed. We have to reduce spending. With the number of people paying in to the system shrinking; so must the budget shrink. That means everything has to be on the table. Foreign aid, Medicaid, Defense Spending, gradually raising the retirement age for Social Security; EVERYTHING!!
DonBee
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 4:04 p.m.
Mr. Briegel - Nor has any Democrat. To truly balance the budget, a large number of entitlement programs will need to change significantly, including pensions and retirement for government employees, social security retirement age, medicare and medicaid, defense spending, etc. We need to remove ALL of the deductions from the tax code, and using that tax system to redistribute money. Including corporate deductions and credits like the oil depletion allowance, and various subsidies. We need to consolidate all 218 low income programs in 1 department and clean up the administration of those programs. Right now they are scattered across every cabinet department. In short a complete budget overhaul is required. Regardless, no congress person would propose such a change, every person would be angry. After all at your anger with our current state government. Think how you would feel if the Federal Government betrayed your values in this fashion.
David Briegel
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 3:36 a.m.
But Don, that's a given. Everyone knows that the "tax and spend" Dems don't want to balance the budget. But you neglect the fact that neither do the Repubs. Now THAT is shocking news! Even you must admit that! And Don, the "redistribution" has been going on for more than 30 years! Remember that the reason Ronnie got into politics was because "his class of people" paid too much tax. He and his disciples have remedied that one ! And jjc, you really need to check your facts!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 1:13 a.m.
Your guy apparently knows more than the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf</a> Tell me, do ya think Mr. Steiner is non-partisan? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Good Night and Good Luck
jjc155
Mon, Aug 22, 2011 : 12:49 a.m.
@ERMG, I can post articles from my "side" of the politic fence too, lol <a href="http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16" rel='nofollow'>http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16</a> <a href="http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30" rel='nofollow'>http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30</a> <a href="http://www.craigsteiner.us/comments/147" rel='nofollow'>http://www.craigsteiner.us/comments/147</a>
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 11:56 p.m.
Clinton more than balanced the budget. FY 2000 ran a surplus His proposal for FY 2001 expected a surplus Sources: <a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa020700b.htm" rel='nofollow'>http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa020700b.htm</a> --and-- <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/politics/clinton.surplus_1_budget-surplus-national-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS" rel='nofollow'>http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/politics/clinton.surplus_1_budget-surplus-national-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS</a> No need to borrow from SS if one is running a surplus. And, BTW, the money that has been borrowed from the SSTF is part of the national debt--it is accounted for there. Good Night and Good Luck
jjc155
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 11:39 p.m.
@Townie, pleeeeaaaasssseeeee tell me that you are kinding in that you think that Clinton "balanced" the budget. You are aware that he took 300million from Social Security (an unfunded liability) and transfered it to the general Budget and called it "Balanced" LOLOLOLOLOL
Townie
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 7:19 p.m.
Bill Clinton did, reduced the deficit produced a surplus that Bush squandered. Oh - and Clinton raised taxes and the economy and jobs boomed.
Phillip Farber
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 5:38 p.m.
The other side.
David Briegel
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.
We really need the geniuses who propose a balanced budget amendment to cut the nonsense and show us a balanced budget. Wonderkid, Paul Ryan didn't balance the budget until 2040. And he's a genius? No Republican has ever proposed a balanced budget. They just dream about it! And at a point when our nation is in crisis, when revenues are at an all time low, we simply can't afford to cut taxes.
Diagenes
Tue, Aug 23, 2011 : 11:20 a.m.
Newt Gingrich(R) GA was Speaker of the House the last time the Federal budget ran a surplus. As you know all spending bills must originate in the House.
Phillip Farber
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 5:37 p.m.
One side.
Mr Blue
Sun, Aug 21, 2011 : 2:41 p.m.
We need a balanced approach that includes increasing revenues and lowering the cost of government, but some people would prefer to sign pledges, pass balanced budget amendments and set up a super congress instead of taking responsibility and doing the right thing by both cutting and raising taxes.