Post Debt Ceiling Cave: Possible Palin Plan Forward ("Two Cent" Solution?)

07/31/2011 | Brices Crossroads

[MestaMachine]

That has nothing to do with it. This about reducing and getting rid of the deficit...and it wouldn’t necessarily have to be Palin. It could be any Conservative who was serious about doing the right thing for this country. Take that log out of your eye. I am getting so damn sick of this.
Connie Mack and Rand Paul have already proposed something close to this. What is the matter with you?

[MestaMachine]

Get a grip. This is actuallya good plan as far as it goes. Why can’t you just get past the P word you so despise and admit it?

[org.whodat]

Because it has zero chance of ever becoming law.

[MestaMachine]

Does that make it a bad plan? I don’t think so. Connie Mack and Rand Paul don’t think so. So your objection is biased to the nth degree by your dislike of anything that has Palin anywhere in a paragraph. That is just ridiculous...especially when this is an IDEA by a Freeper who just also happens to be a Palin supporter.

[org.whodat]

Wrong, it was and is the same as the newt plan, growing your way out of debt, so we are debt free today correct. It is silly because it is still trying to bind future congresses and there is no way that will happen. Period. , now you tell me how you get future congresses to live up to. The answer is it is not going to happen. Silly is silly, you either cut back and start ending departments are you don’t.

[RonDog]

From atlasshrugs:

Does it strike anyone else that this next presidential election feels less like an election
and more like two opposing countries fighting for victory?

Obama's idea of America is positively un-american (collectivist, socialist, transnational).
The Republican mavericks (no, not the RINOs) are channeling our founding fathers,
fighting for individual rights, less government, and our unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

The battle is for America, exceptional, sovereign and free,
vs. America, unexceptional, transnational, statist.

This isn't so much an election but a fight for America.
The Individual vs the State -- it's a non-violent civil war.

[heshtesh]

We should also stop funding our enemies starting with the UN.

You keep putting up post like that and i’ll be looking for the Jergans hand lotion.

[freepersup]

Thank you for posting such a simple yet profound commentary on the philosophical differences of the Democrats and those that are attempting to steer the Republicans and our nation away from (further) peril.

Worth repeating-

Does it strike anyone else that this next presidential election feels less like an election
and more like two opposing countries fighting for victory?

Obama’s idea of America is positively un-american (collectivist, socialist, transnational).
The Republican mavericks (no, not the RINOs) are channeling our founding fathers,
fighting for individual rights, less government, and our unalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

The battle is for America, exceptional, sovereign and free,
vs. America, unexceptional, transnational, statist.

This isn’t so much an election but a fight for America.
The Individual vs the State — it’s a non-violent civil war.

[Colonel_Flagg]

However, it would be wrong to condemn the TEA Party Freshmen who buckled under the tremendous pressure.

Please. Those freshmen know damn good and well why they were elected. It wasn't to do THIS.

[org.whodat]

You cannot pass into law a bill that would be binding on future congresses, it is a none starter.

[editor-surveyor]

Why it matters:

Watch this video, and send it around:

Brother can you spare a Trillion?

[RayChuang88]

I think Palin should support this plan for REAL economic recovery:

1. We MUST reduce the size of government in general--government spending squeezes out the private sector and that can have really bad effects on the economy. In addition to passing the One Percent Spending Reduction Act of 2011 (H.R. 1848/S. 1316), we need to aggressively audit every government agency for bureaucratic overlap, agency bloat and obsolete/unneeded regulations and do the following:

a. Merge agencies to reduce bureaucracy size. For example, why do we need separate agencies for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social service agencies when it could all be handled by ONE agency instead?
b. Reduce the size of bureaucracies in general. With modern computer technology, do we really need so many people to run agencies anymore?
c. Remove obsolete and unneeded regulations. Many regulations on the books no longer apply today, and many regulations cost more to implement than the savings they were supposed to offer.
d. Privatize certain agencies. Do things like air traffic control and running Amtrak need to be done by a government agency?
e. Phase out a lot of agencies in general. Too many agencies just add complexity and their mission could be handled by state or even local agencies at far lower cost.

2. Income tax reform should RIGHT NOW be at the top of the agenda. The current income tax system has become a huge impediment to the economy, when you consider the following problems:

a. You have around 35,000 tax lobbyists trying to tweak the tax code to help or punish even as little as ONE taxpayer.
b. The result is the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) plus additional rulings that is around 70,000 pages of code so complex that even the Internal Revenue Service has trouble figuring out much of it!
c. Because of its complexity, the Tax Foundation estimates the current cost of compliance per year now exceeds US$300 BILLION per year. Some economists estimate the compliance and economic opportunity costs of the tax code per year is over US$500 BILLION per year!
d. Because of the 35% top rate (among the highest in the industrialized world), too many individuals and businesses are involved in tax avoidance schemes by taking advantage of tax loopholes. That explains why millions of jobs, thousands of factories, hundreds of corporate headquarters, and possibly as high as US$14 TRILLION in American-owned liquid assets are "offshored" for tax avoidance reasons, with the economically devastating result of increased unemployment in the USA and too many banks short on liquidity.

Since everyone across the political spectrum wants more taxpayers and everyone to truly pay their fair share, the solution is simple: overhaul the tax code to reduce yearly compliance costs, lower the tax rate to a single under 20% rate, and get rid of just about all the complicated credits, deductions, exemptions and preferences in the Internal Revenue Code--the plan proposed by Steve Forbes originally back in 1996 and described in a book he wrote in 2005. Under the Forbes tax plan, we get the following advantages:

a. The compliance cost per year is far lower, freeing up over US$200 BILLION per year for more productive economic activities.
b. The poor will no longer be subject to income tax, since we now offer a generous US$13,000 per adult (in a two-adult household) and US$9,000 per child initial household exemption for earned income.
c. Above that, all earned income will be subject to a 17.5% income tax--easily among the lowest rates in the world for a G-20 country.
d. We eliminate the alternate minimum tax, estate tax, and additional taxes for being married or living in a registered domestic partner (RDP) relationship.
e. We eliminate double taxation such as including bank account interest, capital gains and stock dividend payments, which encourages American residents and businesses to keep as much of their savings and capital investments in the USA as possible. That could mean millions of jobs, thousands of factories, hundreds of corporate headquarters and the vast majority of that US$14 TRILLION sitting in foreign financial institutions return to the USA, at once lowering the unemployment rate (e.g., creating a far larger base of taxpayers!) and making financial institutions in the USA whole again.
f. If we still have payroll taxes for Social Security, we can drastically cut the rate to under 3% or even lower, since private citizens can now create their own financial "nest egg" for retirement and/or medical bills tax-free, lowering the demand for Social Security and Medicare.
g. With the drastically simpler tax code, corporations will find far less need to spend a fortune to lobby for additions to the IRC or engage in expensive, highly-complex accounting schemes in order to lower the tax burden. Corporations would rather pay a low-rate corporate income tax with a far simpler filings than having to lobby for highly specialized tax breaks and/use complicated company incorporation schemes, both of which waste time and money (I've read just the yearly tax filings for General Electric would fill almost a 53-foot long truck trailer!).

So what are we waiting for even now?

[Leto]

If Sarah P were to run with this agenda she would win big, more important the American people would win big, well done RayC

[casinva]

I like the concept presented here overall, but I would think it might work better to stick with the Mack Penny Plan to establish the 1% incremental budget reductions and THEN to have a separate process to work on tax reform.

One of the most wonderful benefits of The Penny Plan is its simplicity and no nonsense actions that start immediately upon implementation.

To jumble other reforms all together (and especially taxes and IRS changes)confuses things and makes it easier for our politicians to throw in confusion, delays, and smoke and mirrors.

In other words: Yes with the 1% budget reduction solution, but KISS it (Keep It Simple Stupid), lol

Then also work on what we need to do with taxes, hopefully as effectively as that program changes how our government agencies develop and use their budgets.