How To Treat Main Problem Of Gov't Bloat

IBD Editorials ^ | December 1, 2010 | LARRY ELDER

[Kaslin]

President Obama's fiscal commission supposedly offers an "aggressive prescription" to reduce the federal deficit. It's not just the debt and deficit, stupid. It's the size, scope and bloat of the federal government. Here's my plan:

1. Accept the political reality that (a) taxes cannot be raised, and (b) entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) cannot be cut for current or near-future beneficiaries. Voters will not vote to raise their taxes. Voters will not vote to cut off their money. And politicians want votes.

2. To solve this, we need to raise money. How? Fund current and near-term liabilities by selling federally owned land. The government owns more than one-fourth of the land in America. The land use could then be taxed, raising still more revenue.

3. Sell or contract out government enterprises, including but not limited to Amtrak, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Hoover and Bonneville dams, operation of the post office, and government-run nuclear and other power plants.

4. Shut several federal departments and agencies, including Energy, Education, Labor, HUD, HHS (including the Surgeon General), Interior (no need after government land is sold), Commerce and the EPA.

5. "Grandfather" workers 55 and older into existing Medicare and Social Security plans. Offer those under 55 the option of setting up private savings accounts in lieu of Social Security. To replace Medicare, offer those under 55 the option of putting tax-free money into health savings accounts.

[phockthis]

We need the flat tax and take all powers away from the politicians first...

[2001convSVT]

To solve this, we need to raise money. How?

Have a national telethon, just like PBS or Jerry Lewis has. Have Obama on stage with all his liberal friends manning the phone banks.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The most successful ways of correcting problems in the federal government come from the philosophy of balance of power found throughout the constitution.

Unlike a written law, that people try to evade as soon as it is written, it was recognized that the only way to stop a government body, like the congress, from getting out of control, was by having two other bodies, the executive and the judicial, to keep it in check, as one example.

A less well known balance was between the federal government, the States and the people. Justice Thomas recently wrote a superb defense of the 14th Amendment, and how it requires the federal government to protect the people from an oppressive State government.

But the flip side to this was originally that US senators would be appointed by the States, so the senators would keep the federal government in check, protecting the States and the people. But with the 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators, the States lost this power, so since then, both the States and the people have been at the mercy of the every growing federal power.

While the repeal of the 17th Amendment would be good, it is unlikely. So the way around the problem is to make an even *better* system of balance.

Importantly, one that fills a role the founding fathers never anticipated, which is to continually trim the federal government to keep it as a small and orderly national government, that fulfills its constitutional role, but no more.

This idea is to create a Second Court of the United States.

The Second Court of the United States is *not* a federal court. It is a “convention of State courts”, 100 State judges appointed by State legislatures, that decides *not* constitutionality, which is a function of the federal courts, but *jurisdiction*, whether a case should be in the federal court system in the first place.

It addresses the 8,000 or so cases appealed from the federal District Courts to the Supreme Court every year. It can determine that many of those are not federal issues, and should be returned to the States. And this takes advantage of the situation that the SCOTUS cannot possibly hear 8,000 cases.

Right now, the overwhelming majority of these cases are rejected by the SCOTUS, which means they are stuck with the decision of the federal District Courts, for better or worse, often worse. But this also means accepting the assumption that the federal “taking” of these cases by federal judges was right in the first place. A huge expansion of federal power.

But if those cases go through the Second Court of the United States, three things might happen.

Either they will agree that it is a federal issue worthy of the SCOTUS, which would probably reduce the 8,000 to just a few hundred cases, a much more manageable load for the SCOTUS; or they will say that it is a case for State, not federal jurisdiction. If it is then not appealed, it is taken out of the federal courts entirely. If it *is* appealed, even with a few hundred cases, it will likely *not* be heard by the SCOTUS.

But the “default” in this case is *not* to uphold the decision of the District Courts, or that it is a federal decision, but to uphold the decision of the Second Court. That is, taking the case out of federal jurisdiction and returning it to the State of origin. If it is a federal issue, only then will it be given back to the federal District Courts.

You see the slam dunk, here? Vast amounts of State authority returned to the States, taken from the grasp of federal judicial activists.

But it gets even better, because the Second Court of the United States has *original* jurisdiction of lawsuits between the States and the federal government.

Right now, if a State sues the federal government, or the feds sue a State, the case has to go through a long and expensive process, taking years, and will likely have to be heard by the District Courts or the SCOTUS anyway, unless one side or the other quits.

But with the Second Court, a State could confront an onerous federal law, bureaucratic regulation, executive order, unfunded mandates, etc., by suing the federal government, and the case would go directly to this “convention of State judges”, giving all the other States the opportunity to join with this rejection of federal oppression.

Now granted, such suits could still be appealed to the SCOTUS, but this is good, as it would prevent State power from running wild, either.

The end result would be an institution whose very purpose is both to question, and trim, the growth of the federal government. Not just cutting back on the rate of growth, but of existing growth as well.

[SpaceBar]

The french came up with a novel solution to government bloat over two centuries ago.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Close the Departments of Education and Energy. Cut every federal salary by 10 percent. Cut every federal agency’s staff by 10 percent. Halt all foreign aid, dues to the UN and all other overseas handouts. Cancel retirement plans for all federal elected employees. Sell or lease out the national parks and sell off all federal land acquired in the past 50 years.

That’s a start.

[Mouton]

There is only one way to correct the budget imbalance: cut spending. It is that simple. The problem is where to cut it. I say simple again. Take the enumerated powers and apply them in a strict fashion. If there is not a reason found in those powers for any federal program, agency, department or program, get rid of it. Period, end of story.

Problem solved.

[RayChuang88]

If you're talking the Steve Forbes flat income tax plan, I agree with you 100%.

Under this plan, our banks would literally overflow with liquid assets in no time flat because everyone would put their money in US-based banks because we no longer tax interest income from savings, checking and certificate of deposit accounts. And it would encourage corporations worldwide to expand US operations, mostly due to a DRASTIC reduction in the size of tax form filing paperwork with this plan, the 17% corporate income tax rate would make it among the lowest national corporate tax rates in the world and the fact we no longer tax stock dividend payments and capital gains.

Mostly importantly, the Forbes tax plan won't require a potentially expensive overhaul of how to raise tax revenue that FairTax could entail if we went to FairTax directly.

[95B30]

The first thing to do to bring this Government under control is repeal of the 17th Amendment. The idea of our Congress was thus: The House of Representatives were elected by the people of a district to represent the people of that district. The Senate was appointed by the Governor of the State and ratified by the Legislature of that State to represent the interest of the State. This placed a balance on spending since the state now had a voice. Once the 17th amendment took effect the Federal government was no longer restricted by the states and we have out of control spending and unfunded mandates, etc. etc.

[dynachrome]

My prediction:

“Hello, VAT!”

[CincyRichieRich]

I was just about to post it from Jewish World Review...

Wonderful dream...no Republican has the guts to propose this.

Boy, we gotta dream and pray, however. Give them the courage to do so.