Well this is no surprise. How about a compromise trigger that would authorize the president to impound funds in tax receipts don’t reach a certain level; thereby the onus would be spending reductions, not tax increases.
One of the easiest ways to determine where a problem lies is to observe where compromise is acceptably “compromise”.
Because “compromise” is always on the funding side it is relatively easy to determine that funding is not the problem: spending is the problem.
Or another way to look at this is that when it comes to spending the “compromises” are nominally compromises in the rate of spending growth AND in the rate of tax INCREASE.
This is another aspect of what I call Keystone Keynesianism, where “Keystone” is as in Keystone Cops.
Now, Nixon infamously said that we are all Keynesian now ... but he was WRONG!
Maybe for a brief time his claim may have seemed reasonable but there is a fundamental disconnect in Keynesian economics from observed human behavior as well as the observed behaviors of human institutions.
Keynes said that government spending should run counter cyclic to the economy: that government should spend more in bad times but less in good times.
Where the disconnect arises is that REAL politicians, as they migrate to a Keynesian attitude that government spending creates stability (and even prosperity in the minds of those who are fully Keystone Keynesian) quickly come to the point of seeing bad times as the DEMAND for more spending and good times as the OPPORTUNITY for more spending.
Politicians are interested in having their jobs and so we should not be surprised by this.
But should we be unsurprised that ordinary people ALSO manage their affairs in this way? Only instead of their political jobs they think in terms of their needs and wants.
When they are just getting by they may “need” more than they can afford so they borrow; yet, in good times they “want” more so their borrowing accelerates.
Economics IS NOT a study of the movement of money. It IS the study of humans as they move money about. That means it is ultimately a philosophy on being human.
No matter how clever an economic theory may appear to be if it gets human nature wrong it should be considered spurious. Keynesian Economics presumes a level of cultural accountability that human societies don’t innately possess and thus it is a failure, can only be a failure, and will only lead to failure.
Adam Smith had his theory right because he looked at what sort of economy allowed people to become richer; but, Keynes was wrong because (I will maintain) he looked at what sort of economy will be rational.
(Just as, not coincidentally, socialists get things wrong because they look at what sort of economy will be fair.)
So in light of all that what general tax or spending policies should be advanced?
Well, a tax code that requires periodic debate (no block authorizations of unread bills should be allowed) and reauthorization or it goes away might be a nice start, but unless we deal with the underlying spending disease all that will achieve (as desirable as the achievement may be) will be tax code simplification as lazy legislators go for the path of least resistance and that means debating a smaller tax code. Even then it will take time for that benefit to appear.
It is important to note, though, that that doesn’t prevent simple but high taxes.
To deal with the real problem, the spending problem, needs people to know more about the likes of Adam Smith and less about the likes of Marx. And to accept more about Adam Smith’s ilk and reject the crap that Marx and related vermin postulated. It takes wise people to turn away from foolishness.
Which brings us to what lay behind the real problem: the abundance of foolishness. A people that (individually) abuses credit, a credit abusing people: should they not expect a government that abuses credit too? Especially when they demand it provide things like fairness and economic security for individuals?
I’m gonna say: yeah ... just as stink gets stinkier the deeper and wider the cesspool so too does madness at the top of society get worse as madness spread deeper to even the roots.
So the policies we need is the systematic removal of progressivism, of the socialist urge.
Small coincidence the folks we nominally rely on to fight the madness are GUTLESS WONDERS: they have the same infection, it started with Republicans, and they are still the Me Too Republicans even if the Democrats in their zeal for madness have boldly marched on till the likes of FDR might seem conservative by comparison.
I’m not optimistic such leadership is even available. Especially while We The People are so spendthrift in our own affairs.