Posted on 07/30/2011 7:26:06 AM PDT by blueyon
Our nonpartisan campaign is unique — we are sending a message to Congress from concerned citizens across the country who believe federal spending should be managed with the same discipline families must exercise when balancing their budgets at home. Federal spending is out of control and needs to be cut. That’s why we are proposing that Congress cut one cent of every dollar the federal government spends each year for six years — a real solution that will balance the budget by 2019 and reduce federal spending by $7.5 trillion over ten years.
(Excerpt) Read more at onecentsolution.org ...
I say cut .50 cents and 50% of all government employees and be done with it.
This plan is the only one that actually reduces and balances the debt.
Pray for ‘Our Country’ and the ‘One Cent Solution’
it’s better than boehner.
Ten years to reduce spending? If you were out of money, would it take ten years for you to stop spending? Cut Washington off. No more money and they go out of the business of spending and getting kickbacks. Stop sending our tax money out of the country, bring our military home, cut crazy programs within the Federal government. Get rid of the control over education, close down the EPA.
There all kinds of things that can be done if Washington wants to. The problem is they don’t want to do it.
Two problems with the concept (at least for Washington).
Too Simple....A Bill must be written in vague legalese that can be twisted to mean anything they want.
Takes the power out of the hands of the politicians.
Can’t use the Thomas.gov site as it times out after 30 minutes. Yesterday Mack’s bill (H.R.1848) had 43 sponsors . This a.m. it has 46, so hopefully it will gain some steam.
Simplistic on its face, you’d think it would be more acceptable even though it doesn’t defund any of the wasteful stuff, but it’s a start. Small steps, small steps.
Here’s the 46 sponsors. If your boy isn’t there, ask ‘em why:
Rep Adams, Sandy [FL-24] - 6/21/2011
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 5/11/2011
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 6/16/2011
Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] - 6/1/2011
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 6/16/2011
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] - 7/29/2011
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 5/11/2011
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 6/16/2011
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] - 5/11/2011
Rep Chaffetz, Jason [UT-3] - 6/21/2011
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 6/15/2011
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] - 6/1/2011
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 5/11/2011
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 5/13/2011
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 6/23/2011
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 6/16/2011
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 5/11/2011
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 5/11/2011
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 7/13/2011
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] - 7/29/2011
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 6/16/2011
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 5/13/2011
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 5/11/2011
Rep Landry, Jeffrey M. [LA-3] - 6/1/2011
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] - 5/11/2011
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 6/16/2011
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] - 6/16/2011
Rep Mica, John L. [FL-7] - 6/16/2011
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 5/11/2011
Rep Mulvaney, Mick [SC-5] - 7/11/2011
Rep Noem, Kristi L. [SD] - 6/2/2011
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 7/29/2011
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 6/16/2011
Rep Posey, Bill [FL-15] - 6/24/2011
Rep Ribble, Reid J. [WI-8] - 5/11/2011
Rep Rivera, David [FL-25] - 6/1/2011
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] - 6/23/2011
Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] - 5/11/2011
Rep Scott, Austin [GA-8] - 6/16/2011
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 6/16/2011
Rep Southerland, Steve [FL-2] - 6/1/2011
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 6/2/2011
Rep Stutzman, Marlin A. [IN-3] - 5/11/2011
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 6/16/2011
Rep West, Allen B. [FL-22] - 5/11/2011
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 5/25/2011
This plan is the only one that actually reduces debt and balances the budget.
Pray for ‘Our Country’ and the ‘One Cent Solution’
...if only it were that easy.
It is a start though. If you discount debt service (since the idea is not to default), the numbers don’t add up (and debt service is not that much anyway). Here’s the “savings” over 7 years:
1: $34B
2: $68B
3: $102B
4: $136B
5: $170B
6: $204B
7: $238B
Total: $952B
Not bad, but not the $7.5T he’s talking about. The only way you can get this to add up to $7.5T is to count it against projected spending...then this number may be accurate.
The problem with that is the ‘cuts’ involved will be much deeper than 1% per year, due to increasing population (especially old-timers) and inflation. So Social Security payments, for example, will have to go down 2% per year (due to more people being on it), every year, for those 7 years...and probably more like 5% in real terms, as they cannot adjust for inflation either. So the cumulative drop in purchasing power will be more like 30% over those 7 years.
The bottom line is that the problems we’re talking about are HUGE and this 1% number is deceptive in that way.
But hell, if it passes, this country will FINALLY be on the right track. It’s just that I don’t see it being supported on this site (once the real effects are known) and it doesn’t have a prayer with the general public.
I heard him on Hannity.
The explanation is that it finally does away with the “Base Line Budget” that assumes 7% increase per year.
So by eliminating the built in 7%, and then subtracting 1%, it adds up to big cuts.
If we start with $100 and use the two accounting methods we get:
Year 1 $99.00 vs. $107.00
Year 2 $98.01 vs. $114.49
Year 5 $95.10 vs. $140.26
Year 10 $90.44 vs. $196.72
So the “Penny Bill” would cut the budget by 54% over 10 years vs. the current base line budgeting.
“The explanation is that it finally does away with the “Base Line Budget” that assumes 7% increase per year.”
Yea, that’s what I was essentially saying. But the 7% is needed to include COLAs and rising medical costs. If you get rid of it, the people receiving the benefits will feel a lot more pain than the simple 1% being advertised...which is why it can’t fly (as much as I’d love it to).
Freezing government hiring should also be in the plan. As folks retire or resign, beyond current staffing numbers for legislators and White House, they should not be replaced. Reducing the government hydra addresses the cause of the Greek collapse.
“The explanation is that it finally does away with the “Base Line Budget” that assumes 7% increase per year.”
...so looking at it just from the viewpoint of the Social Security Administrator. He’s asked, how much do you need next year - and he sees that enrollment is going to go up by 2%, thanks to the boomers, and that inflation is predicted to be 4%. So he says that he needs 6% more. Instead he gets 1% less, for a total shortage of 7%.
At that point what choices does he have? Assuming that he’s only permitted to cut benefits, rather than change policy - he will have to pay existing and new recipients 93 cents on the dollar, from what they would have otherwise received (administrative costs for SS is practically nothing...cutting costs that will make a difference there). The next year, exactly the same thing...93% of the buying power from the prior year, or around 86% of today’s buying power.
That goes on for 7 or 8 years, and, as you alluded to, the buying power for those recipients will be cut in half.
While that’s fine with me and WILL happen anyway (even if it takes hyperinflation to get there) since we simply don’t have to means to keep on this trajectory...there would be a REVOLUTION of the elderly if this plan got serious traction now - most old people would prefer hyperinflation (as they really don’t believe, or cannot bring themselves to believe, that their generations have bankrupted the country).
Very proud of my guy, Jeff Duncan.
BobL, isn’t Social Security “off-budget”?
I admit I haven’t studied the plan in any detail at all.
I would assume that with total spending capped, Congress would have to balance who gets what money.
If Social Security needs 6%, maybe DEA, EPA, BATFE, etc. can be cut by 30%.
I just watched the video posted in this thread and realized it is only for 7 years.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2756239/posts
“BobL, isn’t Social Security “off-budget”?”
In the sense that it doesn’t have to be authorized every year. As long as the Administrator follows the law regarding eligibility and benefit levels, then Congress doesn’t have to do a thing and people don’t even know its exploding cost. That’s the nice thing about an ‘entitlement’.
But yes, it sure as heck is a REAL COST to the federal government and it is included in revenue and spending projections when you see $3T plus numbers being kicked around.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“I would assume that with total spending capped, Congress would have to balance who gets what money. If Social Security needs 6%, maybe DEA, EPA, BATFE, etc. can be cut by 30%.”
Agree, it doesn’t have to be cut by the same amount in each department. But there are limits to how much you can wring out of other departments. For example, just how much are we willing to let China have uncontested control of the oceans...so that we don’t have to cut Social Security quite as much?
“I just watched the video posted in this thread and realized it is only for 7 years.”
He also says that spending would then be capped at 18% of GNP. As long as that is in place, no more exploding deficits - and we’re as good as gold.
It cuts more and balances faster than the Ryan Plan did. The Ryan Plan had 14 co-sponsors, was brought to the floor of the House for a vote, passed, sent to the Senate and was rejected. This plan has 48 co-sponsors, yet was never brought to the House floor for a vote. Given that it has 34 more co-sponsors than the Ryan Plan had, it would easily have passed in the House. So why wasn’t it brought to the House floor? Because the House knew, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that it would never pass in the Senate.
With all the competing and last-minute plans that have been introduced, and all the behind-closed-door meetings, the goal has always been for the Republican House to compromise with Obama and Reid. The One Cent Solution plan was the strongest of any of the plans (including CCB and the Ryan Plan), and should have been the hill on which we went down fighting. But the fix was always in, compromise WILL happen, and it’s not going to be pretty.
We can all lobby our Representatives to co-sponsor the One Cent Solution Plan, we can all sign petitions demanding it be brought to the floor for a vote. If we succeeded, it would pass the House and then Reid would table it in the Senate. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try, but I am saying I don’t see the point. I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise, because this pessimism sure isn’t fun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.