The measure would impose statutory spending caps to wring $5.8 trillion in unspecified savings from the government over the next decade — twice the $2.4 trillion debt ceiling increase that is allowed.


-----does this sentence make as little sense as I think it does?

But aren't we getting what we vote for at the national level? Here in NY I only have a possibility of influence with one Rep and one Senator and if they are a different party than my registration I have zero influence. Even if I had influence the combined power of the NYC block would overrule most anything my district might want.

There are things I think work better at a state or local level, but there are things I think work better at a federal level. I don't think shifting the power of government will make much of any difference.

It's not black and white which I hate when people portray it as. States do some things better and the Federal government does some things better. I don't want each state to have it's own CDC, NTSB, FAA, FDA, and so on. We need a federal law enforcement agency for certain crimes.

What people are saying this? And it bothers you more for people to say what you suggested than the current ineptitude & demonstrated failures?

You for one.

The smaller the voting base, the more influence your vote has. And if the corruption is rampant in that area...you simply have no choice but to vote with your pencil, then try your feet.


Nobody is disputing that. But to say that there aren't a lot of things that can & (arguably) should be state-based & state-funded doesn't haven't to ultimately lead to "every man is an island" (or whatever that saying is).

So that equals..."all federal programs are run better at the state level"?

Too much Huff, or MSNBC, or whatever makes you hear one thing...and immediately identify it with a talking point you've been trained to attack.

In theory, but I'm not sure in practice. As the number of votes needed to win decreases the size of the group with power and influence decreases. That corruption where only a small group has influence seems prevalent in a lot of local races.

In the end what we need are people with more integrity, but I don't think local control automatically increases the level of integrity.

You want examples of small groups run amok, look at HOAs. You can't get more local than that, and there are numerous examples of disasters at that level. Smaller does not automatically equal better.

Not for everything of course.

But in your example, you can organize the other HOA members and act against such silliness (if it exists & enough members agree with you). But if the rest of that small group does not agree with you, that doesn't mean you should now ask the federal government to regulate all HOAs...it wont be better as your unique local needs wont be considered.

Bzzt, wrong again.

To coin a phrase, it's the tax increase stupid.

It doesn't create integrity but it does force accountability. What's the saying...the perfect leader is the benevolent dictator.

Well, short of ideal is optimal. Larger power & influence at the federal level will (tend to) meet the needs of the majority it serves. And the larger the pool is...the more likely your needs will be homogenized into something you aren't really looking for.

But I may also be homogenized into something I can live with rather than being completely left out.

Hmm ... I'm not so sure I'd go with it forcing accountability or even encouraging it. As I think about this a bit, I think I'm inclined to say that it makes accountability easier to achieve but that's about as far as I can go. My experiences have been that the actual amount of accountability that occurs, or even that seems to be desired, is marginally different & often as not it's less than at the larger levels.

He's got 5 years until reelection? If the economy turns around and he shouts enough anti-abortion, anti-gay rants out, he's sure to get re-elected (or at least your vote in a general election).

How would you expect to have more participation when you are a drop in the ocean as opposed to a swimming pool? I mean...sure, you can always find yourself outnumbered if there are at least 2 other voters but you can at least influence those 2 to see your perspective on a subject rather than the 299 million.

I guess I'm just going to have to say that I tried. :)

You underestimate how easy it is to find someone who gets the social issues right without fucking up on the economic issues.

Then again, you also completely forget that I'm not only pro-choice but also often pro-abortion. It's just not a high enough priority that it's a litmus issue for me.

I'm not trained to attack anything and I don't have a side. You made an incredibly broad statement and I'm pointing out that's what's wrong with a lot of the debate in this country.

So what would you like to divert and what impact will this have on the massive deficit? Because when I look, most of our federal spending is tied up in departments and programs that need to be run on the Federal level. I'm sure there are programs that can be run more efficiently on the State level and I'm all for it, but in terms of it having a signifigant effect on the debt right now (which is what we are talking about), I don't see it. But I'd like to see some examples if you have them.

I just get tired of seeing broad statements such as "cut spending" or "increase revenues" or "fix Social Security". But no one wants to actually say how they'd do it. You end up in situations like this where everyone wants spending to be cut but shits their pants when they find out that has to entail SS, Medicare, and Defense. It's like everyone thinks we have these super secret departments eating up huge chunks of our national debt that can just be wiped out without any repurcussions.

Bolded the part that hits on something. People get what they put in. If people are satisfied with the status quo (whether corrupt, virtuous, or somewhere in between), they tend to be pretty disengaged. So in a sense, they are voting that they are in agreement by simply not voting in opposition(or maybe a non-vote can be seen as half a vote for incumbency).

I don't get what you guys want. To just keep borrowing money forever? I know your stance on cutting the Defense budget, So I guess I don't understand where you think we're going to come up with a way balancing the budget. While tax and spend may not be good, it surely is more responsible than borrow and spend, right?

It's odd to me that groups that call themselves "fiscal conservatives" are so in favor of running up as much debt as they can. I don't like taxes and I'd consider myself fiscally conservative, which is why I think it's bullshit to borrow a ton of money and then throw it on the lap of the next generation.

To answer your question about the short term...here is the paragraph directly above the snippet you quoted from me.


I have said over & over that the Bush/Democrat tax cuts for the rich should have been allowed to expire in December 2010. It would have had a negligible impact to the economy & likely would have been more helpful in the short term for government liabilities.

Now, while I believe ALL tax rates should be lower, you absolutely have to completely remove the corporate loopholes that enable companies that profit to not pay taxes. Simplify the corporate tax structure & we'll get to personal income at some point as well. Obfuscation is the easiest way to ensure the indigent stay that way.

Spending cuts. The first massive spending cuts have to increase retirement ages & reduce SS payouts for people under 50. Sorry, I fall into this as well, but it simply isn't viable at this time. That's easy. Hopefully that saves a trillion or so (of fake money anyway).

Medicare...premiums will have to go up...but they should be scaled by age & means. Speaking of means...all Medicare & SS applicants should be means tested...no reason to hand out money to millionaires just because they are old.

Time to end the wars...all of them...seriously. Reduce the presence we have around the world including places like Japan, Germany, etc. China is not our enemy unless we want to make them our enemy (competitor sure). And of course, Iraq & Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I think we'll have to hang around Afghanistan a little while but Iraq should be a priority to get out of.

Those are all pretty obvious & unoriginal ways to cut spending & increase tax revenue in reasonable ways. I'm open to other cuts as well...but I'm less focused on the compromise that will be reached as I am on how we move forward as a country. Worrying about cutting teacher salaries & collecting from tax evaders will only get us so far. We have to innovate again & find ways to make us resource-agnostic.

My own experience, at the smallest/most local levels, is that a certain amount of corruption is often desired ... in the hopes that you can get it to swing in your favor.

I absolutely loathe this whole 'Gang of Six' that we keep hearing about whenever 'compromise' takes place. Two thoughts come to mind......

1. Are we lead to believe that these are the only six people in Congress that can work these things out?

2. I think these six allow the others to hide in the background and avoid missteps or offering up their own options that may assist in a better bill. It seems the rest are intent on avoiding blame rather than being real leaders.

Also, I was greatly amused by the Republican leadership voicing concerns that the savings estimate on the current proposal is 'overinflated because it assumes the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2012'. I may be an idiot, but I think that the tax cut bill says exactly that and anyone who says otherwise is the one making the assumptions, not vice versa.

I have helped overthrow both my local HOA and my local schoolboard when each went off the reservation and get new ones voted in to replace them (and the HOA one was essentially a vote of no confidence that let us re-elect all positions). At a federal level I can't do more than help install a new Representative and Senator, and my vote is pretty tiny for both, let alone a new President.

ROFL

My point being that there is an inverse relationship between the work done on an individual level to change a small group versus a larger group. I'm sure that the HOA and school board fights took up a significant amount of your time. In a larger group, the fight is more spread out, and not as likely to devolve into personal grudge matches. There are definitely pros and cons, but just by transferring things to a local level isn't going to be a magic bullet that makes everything run smoother and more efficiently in government.

Coburn was pushing his option. That's the kind of things that should be happening. That's a much different concept than the 'Gang of Six' being the arbitrators for the entire nation, even with Coburn being one of those six. The two comments are not in any way mutually exclusive.

First recall in Wisconsin was a resounding victory for Democrats. Though the tea party clown that the Republicans ran is a tax evader and wife beater. What did they expect?

But let's say I think you're an idiot or corrupt. I'd be horrified that you were so easily able to take control of a body that has a considerable impact on my daily life.

I don't think smooth & efficient are the results one should be trying to accomplish by de-centralizing. It should be to distribute authority & increase the individual's ability to affect change, when needed/desired.

So, it basically sounds like the argument against it (or the extrapolation) is that "I have to actually interact with my neighbors & community" rather than be one of thousands who can gripe about a faceless entity.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting.

You're definitely misinterpreting. I'm saying smaller doesn't necessarily mean better. I think the people are more important than the structure. While smaller bodies allow more control, the people with control aren't always going to be more responsible.

Agreed on all accounts. But their ability to screw up the entire country is also lessened in the process as well.

I am perfectly fine with communities, states, and even multi-state agreements collaborating on things that have some level of commonality & scaling efficiency. What I am suggesting is that at least, if that agreement is going to be entered, that as a voter I always have a maximized ability to hold people accountable for their good, bad, or corrupt decisions. As it stands today, I do not on many a topic.

So, to reiterate for those who want to know how my HOA will fund our HOA air defense...many of the current & conventional federal government run programs remain where they are where practical. But moving more decision making to the state level (which, can in turn decide to enable the county or municipality level) is a start to fixing a lot of the corruption & accountability issues we have today which in turn drive us to the brink of financial Armageddon, imho.

But I care far more about screwing up my ability to park where I want to than I do the national debt.

Unless you live in California of course

But it's also much easier to limit their damage and kick them out.

Absolutely. It even goes to my argument concerning the Gang of Six. They've become an even smaller group of decision makers within a Congress that already is a body that is very distant from the public it's supposed to be serving.

This sounds similar to my concerns whenever I hear localization touted as a positive without proof of said claim in a specific case. Long story short is that it's easier to find competent people in a larger pool than it is a smaller pool.

I'd much rather have someone in DC (or Minnesota or Timbuktu) get it right than someone in Athens or my neighborhood get it wrong.

It's the "getting it right" that seems to be the tricky part.

I think most of what irritates people about government on a daily basis are local and state issues. On any given day I'm much more likely to bitch about parking restrictions, permits, park maintenance, etc. than I am about any federal issue. I think most people do the same thing. If you're rich or dependent on government support you may have more federal issues, but the average person comes in contact with state and local government a lot more.

While Jon and I wouldn't agree on getting it right, I agree with him in general. I don't really care where the decision is made, I just want what I define as better decisions.

In most cases from my experiences, it tends to be the implementation rather than the concept which is at fault.

Regulation can still exist at the federal level for national policies which affect how the country interacts with the world. To me, this should be the basic foundation & guiding principle of a federal government. Everything from how you defend yourself/remain a sovereign nation, how you do business with other nations, what basic rights to all citizens have, national infrastructure, to what you allow to be imported (i.e. does it violate other federal laws), to how you allow immigration...all belong at the federal level. I think these are fairly self-evident.

Social programs, public education, police/fire/health facilities, local infrastructure should basically all be localized to the degree that the state wishes to localize.

But none of this means that the federal government cannot have general regulation & guidelines over all of these...it simply means that the state should have more authority on such topics as the citizens desire. This also doesn't preclude states from entering agreements with other states, providing they are not violating federal law, in order to maximize effective policy & scale.

But it always comes back to checks & balances. Localizing allows more of that, and allows for communities & states to more closely adhere to what their citizens want. And if the citizens want things they cannot afford...and blow up their own economy...they can then ask the other states for assistance. No, they should not expect the federal government to do it...they will actually have to own up & stop living beyond their means.

I guess I am basically describing the EU. :)

So they are allowed to unilaterally impose their plan? Interesting. I guess you haven't heard of the various committees that discuss matters before they are brought to the entire House/Senate.

So, you would be happier living in Jon's utopia of little to no taxes, no rules for corporations in labor, and the freedom to carry out your own personal judicial system when somebody steals from you...if that were the federal direction? All in the name of not having to vote locally on such minor issues like parking fines?

And I apologize in advance for mis-characterizing Jon's utopia. :)

Lord only knows I'm not usually in the position of having jphillips back, but I really don't think that's even close to what he said, the key clue being his acknowledgment about the vast differences in what constitutes "getting it right".


No apology required, it was close enough for the purpose ;)

From my own experiences, I'd argue that neither the concept nor the implementation is where it breaks down: it's the talent pool.

I've seen what passes for local elected officials, too often it's people who couldn't run a hot knife through warm butter but their ego & desire for control combines with their lack of overriding commitments elsewhere to provide both opportunity & motivation.

But that is precisely the point, as I see it. It's the process of 'getting it right' that is broken, imo.

And getting it right for you is dramatically different than getting it right for JPhillips. So why can't you both "have it right" by having the ability to vote & hold accountable those people who determine such things.

My guess is Jon's federal utopia and his municipal utopia would both be intolerable to me. That's why I care more about the content of the decision than where the decision is made.

But if we both work in the same town or live under the same HOA we can't both get our dream. And I think it's more likely to go horribly wrong in a small group than a large group.

Which is why neither of us will be happy living in the same neighborhood.


But the absence of "horribly wrong" isn't the same as "happy" (or "satisfied" if you prefer). That's the kicker here I think, it's what level on the
miserable --> giddy scale you can live with. I'm tired of being closer to the left than to the right (no pun intended) on the scale & am less willing than ever to be satisfied with the middle as an acceptable option.

Some of this I think boils down to an idea of I shouldn't have to live under laws I don't like. In any group larger than 1, that's very unlikely. I expect there to be laws I disagree with and I can live with that. That doesn't mean I don't try to push towards my favored outcomes, but I don't expect to always get what I want.

I also think some of this boils down to paying for things I do not like or more accurately, paying for more things I do not like. As a consumer, I get to choose what I want to pay for. Some times I make wrong choices but the responsibility is mine. On the same track, I also get to choose how much I spend and shared that with others when I used to teach personal financial responsiliblites.

Extrapolating to governments, I feel I have more "choice" in how my local tax dollars are spent locally. This is pertinent in my city where elections are frequent and electees are ever-changing, as well as lots of coverage on what is being spent within their balanced budgets. On the federal level, I have such a distrust with the legislative process that it feels like a black hole. For decades, I have seen the exhorbant military and defense expenditures, only to get far worse. Also during these decades, I have seen the extremely low ROI regarding the War on [Fill-in-the-blank], plus the various Stimlus (non-bailout) packages. But I feel I have no representation, no voice or ability to affect change. The system has gotten too out of control (and self perpetuating, self sustaining) to believe that it is a representational government.