Posted on 02/17/2010 5:17:33 PM PST by dr_who
Assessing the Republican electoral l sweep on Washington’s Fox Morning News November 10, Texas Sen. Phil Gramm said voters “didn’t send us here to raise taxes half as much as Bill Clinton, increase spending half as much as Bill Clinton, or increase regulations half as much as Bill Clinton.” Gramm will try to set himself apart from other presidential contenders with an unapologetic, fiscally conservative agenda. But will Gramm’s stances position him at the center of his party or on its fringes? Here are several issues the Republicans must confront if they want to be considered serious government cutters:
* Tax fairness. Rep. Dick Armey, the likely House majority leader, wants to replace the current loophole-ridden Internal Revenue Code with a 17-percent flat-rate tax and allow large standard exemptions. Armey’s plan would end the use of the tax code as a tool of income redistribution and behavior modification and would restore its appropriate purpose-raising money to operate the federal government.
Armey’s tax revolution won’t happen overnight. But Republicans could simultaneously fulfill one plank of their Contract With America and launch a preemptive strike for Armey’s tax crusade by cutting the tax on capital gains to 17 percent and indexing the gains so that inflation doesn’t penalize persons who hang onto their investments.
* Budget reform. Since 1974, Congress has used “baseline budgets.” The Congressional Budget Office projects how much federal agencies will spend over the next five fiscal years, building in increases. When spending rises by less than the CBO projects, Washington insiders declare that a spending “cut.”
For the past five years, Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.) has called for an end to baseline budgeting. Instead, he wants Congress to prepare a one-page budget spelling out how much the government can spend in
each of the 19 budget categories. If Congress spends more money in one category than the budget allows, the president can rescind spending until the target is met. And when the budget is up for renewal, if Congress doesn’t pass an appropriations bill for an agency, that agency can spend only as much as it did the previous year.
Incoming House Speaker Newt Gingrich promises an end to baseline budgeting. Cox’s proposal would further brake spending growth.
* Spending cuts. In 1993, Ohio Rep., John Kasich and Republicans on the Budget Committee proposed a five-year program that would cut $479 billion in spending from the president’s budget. The Kasich plan would have abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission, halted federal land purchases for five years, and frozen cost-of-living allowances for military retirees younger than 65.
The Kasich plan offers a starting point for more dramatic spending cuts. Federal welfare programs offer obvious targets. Defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and abolishing the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities should also be no-brainers.
* Entitlements. Republicans will demonstrate their seriousness as budget cutters when they decide to confront or evade Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal pensions. Those programs, along with interest on the debt, consume half the federal budget now and will increase to nearly 70 percent within 10 years.
The Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform will issue its recommendations in mid-December. Whatever the commission recommends, Republicans could build a bipartisan bridge by pushing to increase the retirement age gradually and immediately. Rep. J. J. Pickle (D-Tex.) proposes increasing the retirement age by two months a year indefinitely; this would make the retirement age 66 in 2001, 67 in 2007, and so on.
Unfortunately, in a November 11 speech, Gingrich said it would be a mistake to make any changes in Social Security before the turn of the century. The sooner elected officials tackle retirement programs, the less dependent those programs will be on tax dollars when Gingrich’s generation retires.
* Regulations. One of the most innovative ideas of the 103rd Congress was the A-to-Z spending-cut program proposed by Reps. Rob Andrews (D-N. J.) and Bill Zeliff (R-N.H.). The plan would have let each member of Congress propose a single spending cut or package of cuts anywhere in the federal budget and then required the House to vote on each cut. Democratic leaders prevented A-to-Z from getting to the House floor. But the A-to-Z format could be adapted for regulations as well. Why not have a “regulatory A-to-Z” that forces votes on, say, the auto-emissions regulations in the Clean Air Act? The Family and Medical Leave Act? The wetlands provisions of the Clean Water Act? The Endangered Species Act?
Regulations are the big test of whether Republicans are serious about reducing the size and scope of government. But Gary Bauer, Paul Weyrich, and other prominent social conservatives are pushing
congressional Republicans to fill the legislative calendar with proposals to zap porn, bash gays, and outlaw abortions—in other words, to increase non-economic regulations. If Republicans want to become the majority party of the 21st century, they must recognize that getting Big Brother out of our wallets while inviting him into our bedrooms is no bargain.
No HTML in headlines.
Yep, so I see. Ohwell...
Here I will answer the question... No republicans are not interested in a meaningful restructuring and downsizing of government. At the local level try proposing even the smallest reduction in services. Can’t be done because voters want a vast, and powerful government.
From a Black Crows song: “Actions speak louder than words... and I’m a man of great experience”.
LLS
By Rick Henderson, the Hall of Fame baseball player?
You’ll know they’re serious when they tackle both entitlement spending AND the Department of Defense. At that point, they’re truly paying attention to the deficit and what’s driving it.
And yeah, the DoD isn’t going to be the popular cut on this board, but so be it. Between the two listed, you have over 75% of the budget.
True. though many here might scream about the threat to our security in pentagon cuts. But a broke country won’t be able to defend itself for very long.
You will know Congress is serious when personnel and programs are reduced in numbers and dollars. And if you think that is going to happen anytime soon you live in another world.
Providing for the defense of our country is constitutional.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not.
That’s a trick question.
True, but our territory hasn’t been threatened by armed invaders since 1941. And the post office is also unquestionably constitutional.
Or in 15 years even. :/
I will add though that the people who have been in charge of the state department throughout bush, clinton, bush and obama administrations are also responsible for the security of this country and they have failed miserably to do their job. A harrowing of the state department bureaucracy is in order.
“Providing for the defense of our country is constitutional.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not.”
You’ll hear no arguments against that statement from me. But our defense spending is currently 7x that of China.
Do we need all the latest gadgets of warfare? How much is a massively expensive stealth bomber going to help against the underwear bomber?
Well, with the exceptions of the Baghdad embassy, Khobar Towers, the barracks in Beirut, the WTC, the Pentagon, etc. There are dozens of attacks against US soil since 1941. That folks like you refuse to see it is half the problem.
Nice try, thanks for playing.
A Consulate (Baghdad) is considered the nation’s soil by international treaty and agreement. By default, so is the rented/leased/borrowed/granted land that an operations base in any foreign land occupies. The Saudi gov’t asked for US protection from Saddam, so there’s Khobar Towers. Beirut I will grant your point, since that was a UN mission.
Japan and Germany are excellent bases for containing the Russian bear, which is still a threat today.
You would like to see North Korea take over the South? There are only a few thousand US troops there, and they have kept the North in check for 45 years. You would turn those folks over to that murderous regime?
US forces are deployed to bases around the world to protect US interests. Sometimes the nation’s interest doesn’t coincide with your thoughts or mine. Unless you want to become an insular nation with little to no contact with the outside world (think North Korea) there is an implied and real mission for the world’s superpower to keep its presence known at the spearhead of its international desires and obligations.
US interests often demand that there be US forces in place to intercept and deflect aggressive actions against the USA and its allies. When there is weakness, inattention or disinterest in protecting those interests and assets, we end up with the problems aforementioned.
The carping about the (s) highly skilled and well-trained(/s) DHS staff is a strawman, since they have nothing to do with the offshore assets our side discussion is about. So is the failure of the State Department. Neither of those groups have anything to do with the military.
As a percentage of the budget OR GDP, the military budget is about HALF what it was at the height of the Cold War. To think that shrinking it any further will help anything or anyone but the free world’s enemies is Pollyannaism of the nth degree.
You quite effectively keep ignoring the point that a US base *IS* US soil while in use by American forces.
While you might not recognize any threat from Russia, Japan is also useful for countering China’s moves against US interests in the far East.
You are the one who brought up Korea, so trying to denigrate my point is yet another strawman. To address your statement: the few thousand US troops there are only to bolster the SK forces until a larger force can be landed for SK defense. There are such things as treaties and obligations, even if you disagree with them.
The Russians are NOT able to invade Europe, but we don’t dare defend Georgia (a nation in Eastern Europe)...
That is what I refer to talking out both sides of one’s mouth. You cannot have it both ways, FRiend. Russia either is or is not a threat. China either is or is not a threat.
It’s evident from your arguments that you have a bit of an issue with funding (at HALF cold war levels) the brave and noble armed forces of the USA. IF this is such a big deal to you, why not just go hide under a blanket someplace, or move someplace where your tax dollars will be spent more to your liking?
I’m done with this. Good day.
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.