Size Matters

Last week, I wrote that the current deficit and debt ceiling negotiations happening in Washington represent politics at their worst – politics on steroids. Amidst the posturing and prevaricating, however, one conservative has emerged with a legitimate plan to liberate America from its bondage of debt. This week, Senator Tom Coburn released a 600-page plan that would reduce the deficit by $9 trillion over the next ten years by slashing wasteful spending and eliminating an estimated $1 trillion in tax deductions.

The plan is not a gimmick, it's not smoke and mirrors, and it's not a media stunt. Senator Coburn has crafted a proposal that addresses spending in virtually every segment of government, from defense to entitlements, and targets tax deductions that have benefitted special interests on both sides of the aisle for far too long.

Unfortunately, a brilliant plan is all it is likely to ever be, because the majority of our representatives in Washington (and the special interests that finance them) are unwilling to set aside self interest in favor of principle. Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, has panned Coburn's proposal as "outside the conservative mainstream." If by "mainstream" Mr. Norquist is referring to the GOP's tradition of shielding its Blue Blood base from common sense tax reforms, then he's correct. On the flip side, of course, are the Democrats, for whom the prospect of reducing the size of government by implementing meaningful spending cuts is anathema.

This cuts to the heart of the problem and is the reason why so many Americans have grown so cynical about government. So long as neither side is willing to put all of their cards on the table, nothing but the most benign of "reforms" has any hope of seeing the light of day. Thus, when the dog-and-pony show unfolding on Capitol Hill finally comes to a close, and nothing substantive is done and nothing changes, the politicians will make excuses and blame the other side; but underneath it all, Congress's inability to make any progress on runaway spending boils down to a fundamental unwillingness to act. Members know that the current budget won't withstand close scrutiny, so they demagogue and demonize anyone who calls for an honest examination of public expenditures and income sources.

Kudos to Mr. Coburn for having the courage to put something substantive forward, even if it only serves to provoke serious discussion. We desperately need to have an honest discussion that goes beyond mere rhetoric and takes a hard look at reality. Calling for the elimination of unwarranted tax loopholes isn't a call for a tax increase; it's a call for the restoration of equity and fairness in the tax code. And pressing for substantive reforms of entitlements isn't a move to starve Granny, it's an attempt to restore integrity and solvency to bankrupt programs that threaten to capsize the Republic. At a time when we are generating red ink by the barrel, every expenditure deserves to be scrutinized; nothing should be exempt.

It's fitting that on the same day Coburn's plan was announced, it was reported that the National Institutes of Health provided funding to a study examining "what effect a gay man's penis size has on his sex life and general well-being." This is the kind of ridiculous and frivolous spending that abounds in Washington, and the kind of thing we can no longer afford to indulge in if we want our nation to survive and thrive into the future.

Thankfully, the American people – unlike their representatives in Washington – still retain a measure of common sense. They don't need a government funded study to tell them what they already know: when it comes to budgets and taxpayer funded expenditures, size matters

Speaking of budgets.....the United States needs a balanced budget and it won’t take 2-3 years to get it done. It is said that 70-80% of the American people want a balanced budget. If this is the case, it should happen within 6 months. All it takes is for the required number of states to get together and get it done. This two to three years crap is a bunch of BS. Hell, We won WWII in four years. The American people can do anything they want if they put their minds to it.

Coburn released a 600-page plan that would reduce the deficit by $9 trillion over the next ten years

more 'ten year plans' that are portrayed as actually having substance...

funny we can get the 10 yr plan mentioned along side of queer appendages...sounds like D.C. dont it ???

“Senator Tom Coburn released a 600-page plan that would reduce the deficit by $9 trillion over the next ten years by slashing wasteful spending and eliminating an estimated $1 trillion in tax deductions.”

Let’s see. That’s $900Bil a year until the next Congress gets a redo (for one year, in other words), and an annual $100Bil a year in eliminated tax deductions that will continue forever unless the law is changed. In the meantime the deficit “reduction” amounts to approx one half the annual budget deficit at its present pace.

That’s the problem with attempting to merge budgetary matters, which last one or two years, with laws that continue indefinitely.

Until the deficit spending junkies in Congress refuse to raise the debt ceiling, confining the Feds to spending only at the rate of current revenues, and pass a law mandating zero baseline budgeting, we can be sure they are merely trying to avoid the awful fate of not getting their next deficit spending fix.

Speaking of budgets.....the United States needs a balanced budget and it won't take 2-3 years to get it done. It is said that 70-80% of the American people want a balanced budget.

Everybody wants a balanced budget. Trouble is, everyone wants to keep their little piece of federal largesse. They want it cut for the other guy.

Therefore, I believe nothing substantive will be done until forced by events. Greece has some big boys to help get it get back on its feet. Who is big enough to get Uncle Sam back on his feet?

Coburn’s plan is not enough. The deficit is...deficit (over $1.5 trillion estimated for this year, IIRC), and it adds up to about $15 trillion over the next ten years, if there are no increases in spending. That’s about how much it needs to be cut.

Trashy headline by Ken Connor or his editor, BTW. I disrespect it.

If by "mainstream" Mr. Norquist is referring to the GOP's tradition of shielding its Blue Blood base from common sense tax reforms

Oh yeah we're all Blue Bloods around here. /s

Conner fails to acknowledge "the base", rather than his phony straw man "Blue Blood base," talks of replacing the existing labyrinthian, indecipherable tax code with a flat tax or national sales tax. Either would eliminate loopholes, set asides and stealthy maneuvers for tax avoidance completely.

Of course, either makes it harder for ~~corrupt~~ politicians in both parties to give things away to their special interests and make all those tax lawyers and most IRS agents unemployed.

People fear filling out their tax forms because they may make errors. They fear the IRS. Those who aren't the most wealthy may overpay because they don't have tax attorneys on retainer to fight their cases.

A flat tax or national sales tax removes that fear. Such fear restricts prosperity, undermines growth opportunities, increases tax avoidance at the top levels and is used by politicians to rule over the People, rather than represent them.

If the conversation includes that idiotic monthly ‘prebate’ or as I like to say, the No Democrat Left Behind Act, then I'll stick with the same system forever. Anything that creates more monthly checks coming from the federal government is not just something that should be shunned, but something that should be actively fought against.

All that would happen is that future elections will be a constant class battle where Democrats constantly try to raise the ‘poverty’ level for the prebate checks, as well as increasing them yearly no matter what the economy does, and additional federal sales taxes on ‘excesses’ - Booze, tobacco, big cars, boats, planes, whatever can be driven into the ground economically to continue to feed the class warfare the Democrats thrive on.

The solution for that is painfully simple. Simple, because in stead of taxing food, primary housing, home energy, and medical care, you just do not levy a tax on those things.

Painfully, because the tax becomes a relatively simple point-of-sale thing, and the legions of IRS employees not needed to collect and tablulate revenue can find a new job.

The hideously large bureaucracy required to just keep track of even monthly address changes for a check-issuing scheme, processing, stationery, postage, handling, the probability of rampant fraud, and all the special interests vying for 'prebate' money would kill that program at birth.

After all, we're looking to save money here and raise revenue, and additional bureaucracy is not what we need.

I agree with most of what you say. Only, I take exception to the term 'revenue' and government in the same sentence.

Revenue is a concept from the tyrants in government that gives rise and excuse for abuse of citizens.

Government has debts; it has no, or at least shouldn't have, REVENUE.

Government creates debt and the debt is paid by monies collected from citizens, taxes, fees and tariffs. All the other entitlements it deigns to distribute for votes is theft from tax-paying citizens.

In other words, the government should not be allowed to spend any more than it legitimately collects. If it doesn't have the money, then its entitlements, those payments not needed as a cost of doing business, should be stopped, period. Foreign aid, subsidies, vote-buying entitlements, education programs, health programs and the hundreds of other 'voter value-added' programs must stop.

So, I am against any 10 year deal. I am against raising the debt limit. If no deal is reached, then Little Timmy Geitner and Obama can run the gauntlet of choosing who not to pay. They're damned if they do, they're damned if they don't. The decision of who to pay is their - and it will be their downfall.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all for a balanced budget, and to avoid being tangled in terminology, perhaps it would be better to call what the Government is permitted to take in as taxes its allowance.

I was just using the most common term, that which gave rise to the word 'revenuer', and in places I used to hang my hat, that was an epithet often accompanied by additional profanity when not in mixed company.

I even like the idea of a tax holiday after the government has been given enough to operate at a level within its Constitutional constraints.

Considering the onus of a consumption tax, tell me that wouldn't spur spending...

Understood. My take on the Federal government was that it was created to address common issues, a very few common issues, most dealt with in the Bill or Rights, more succinctly. That, and the protection of this country by an armed military, not a glorified Gestapo called a DHS.

For those things not specifically enumerated (allowed) for the Federal Government - ALL else should be left to the sovereign States who, together, gave life to the Federal government. Everyone seems to have forgotten that.

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.