Posted on 02/06/2004 12:16:52 PM PST by Jean S
In 1995, the first year of the Republican House majority, Congress actually cut discretionary spending. It’s high time we got back to pruning waste from government. It can be done. Here’s how I propose we do it now:
1. We go back to using the right words: limited government. We don’t just want fiscal restraint for the sake of itself; we want its result: smaller government.
2. We confirm our judges. We commit to taking seriously the constraints on federal power that the Framers placed in the Constitution to protect our liberties. Nothing is more important to that objective than ensuring the integrity of the third branch of government, our judiciary.
One-Third, Plus One
3. We need to stop looking for 218 conservative votes in the House and 60 conservative votes in the Senate. We have conservatives in the leadership of the House, the Senate, and the White House. A veto strategy would require only one-third of the Congress and the President working together to control spending.
To this end, I am organizing 145 of my colleagues—one-third plus one of the House—to sign a pledge to President Bush that we will vote to sustain any veto he casts to control spending.
4. We need to amend the Constitution to control spending. The Spending Control Amendment that I will soon introduce is modeled on California’s constitutional spending limit—approved by a 75%-to-25% popular vote in 1979. (The 1990 repeal of the California limit led to runaway spending and, ultimately, the Davis recall.)
Colorado’s similar 1992 constitutional spending limit (which caps tax revenue at the prior year’s level, adjusted for inflation and population growth, and refunds surpluses) is a huge success. Recent polling shows 75% support.
The Spending Control Amendment will limit spending to the prior year’s level, plus inflation and population growth. Additional spending would require a three-fifths vote in Congress.
5. Even before we complete the process of amending the Constitution, we need to enact legislation to put enforcement teeth in our budget process. The budget should be an enforceable law, not a non-binding resolution. To enforce budget limits, a three-fifths supermajority would be needed to exceed budget caps. And the President would be given authority for line-item reduction, to cut back spending to levels enacted in the budget.
If Congress and the President can’t agree on spending within the legal timeframe, an Automatic Continuing Resolution would freeze spending at current levels for the next year.
HUMAN EVENTS readers can help by contacting your elected officials—not just Republicans, but Democrats as well—and letting them know that reining in government is a serious priority. Remind them that a commitment to individual liberty was the genius of the American Revolution.
We can return to the principles of our Founding Fathers—and these five steps are a great way to start.
Yeah, before we reduce the size of government or after?
It's a lot easier to say "no" to a dem president. It is harder to say "no" to your own guy.
A key part of the argument for electing a dem president.
In addition, you can go to his website and see him brag about all of the "goodies" that he's brought home to his district in California.
With all due respect, Mr. Cox -- You're part of the freakin' problem.
Chris Cox is full of crap. He voted in favor of the two most idiotic "big government" bills last year -- the Medicare prescription drug bill and the national "Do Not Call" legislation.You're right that he could do better and that he has some seemingly hypocritical or contradictory stances. But yours is not really a post that is responsive to the subject at hand, namely Cox's current proposals. It's fine to point out what mistakes he's made, in other words, but all you're doing is trashing the guy without saying one word about the current topic.
In addition, you can go to his website and see him brag about all of the "goodies" that he's brought home to his district in California.
With all due respect, Mr. Cox -- You're part of the freakin' problem.
Plus, you're giving a rather one-sided view. He's one of the National Taxpayers Union's most recent "Taxpayers' Friend Award" winners (24th best in the House; score 64%; grade "A"). (Link)
His bill to put a permanent end to the estate (death) tax, HR 51, is featured on the National Tax Limitation Committee's front page.
His currently-posted rating by Citizens Against Government Waste is a 91, lifetime 89. (Those only go through 2001, so it is fair to say that any update of them will reflect a somewhat lower score through 2003.)
So don't just post "He's full of crap" and, apparently for that reason, just reject the current proposal out of hand. As "bad" as you say he is, there are only a few dozen who are better in the House.
1. No more income tax witholding from paychecks. All income taxes are to be paid in their entirety when a tax return is filed.
2. The deadline for submitting tax returns is hereby changed from April 15th to the Monday in November immediately preceding Election Day.
3. Congress must submit a balanced budget to the President every year. If Congress ever submits a budget in which the government's spending exceeds the government's revenues, every member of Congress (including those who didn't vote for it) will spend that entire fiscal year in a Federal prison, without receiving any compensation for their work.
It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.
Republican Senate response: "Are you crazy? We can't do that! The Democrats and the media might call us mean-spirited!"
This is good because it can be done quickly and with Congressional majority. Bush also supports a "PAYGO" type rule for all spending. It's not a cure-all but it is a key discipline WHICH FAVORS MOVING US TOWARDS LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
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.