Reform America

[GenSeneca]

I wanted to share a few ideas I had about reforming America. Please feel free to question or comment on what I have proposed or share your own list.

1. Balanced budget requirement

Just that, requires that the budget be correctly balanced annually under threat of removal from office. This extends right down the line of Government and its agencies. In the private sector, you cannot run a deficit every year and expect to keep your job.

2. Budgetary Spending and Tax Collection Restrictions

The Federal Budget cannot grow by more than 1.5% a year and can only grow as a result of budget surplus. To avoid being taxed into oblivion, taxes are capped by a flat tax that affects all persons in the United States at an equal rate and those federal withholdings cannot exceed 30% of income.

(Only actual people able to vote, with a source of income and guaranteed constitutional rights within our government are to be taxed by federal government. Foreign imports are the only inanimate's that face a one time federal tax at their point of entry. Transactions of goods and services between people, as well as property, within the United States are not taxed on a federal level. States would continue to have their own tax policies.)

No longer would there be federal taxes on businesses or industries headquartered and/or operating primarily in the United States.

3. Removal of Omnibus Bills

Unrelated legislation can no longer be lumped together for expediency or political childishness. Each ancillary bill or amendment must be Germain to the bill up for a vote. I.E. an Energy bill can contain only energy related amendments and so on.

4. Removal of all earmarks

Gone.

5. Sunset clauses become standard for all new legislation and retroactive for old legislation

Congress should spend far more of its time going over the piles of previously enacted legislation than writing and passing new laws. Laws must go through review to ensure they are meeting the purpose of their passage. These reviews must take place at least every decade, at most annually, and conclude with a vote to renew (with or without updates) or remove. This work is long overdue because reviewing old legislation, that other people wrote, doesn't get a politician camera time or votes for re-election.

6. Military Budget and War Tax

We disband the Military. Just kidding... The military budget is set to 25% of the Nat Budget during Peacetime and War. Nasa and the military work more closely together to prevent redundancy and waste in R&D of new technology.

If the military is forced to exceed its budget, like say for a real worldwide conflict, a 10% federal sales tax is an option for bringing in additional money.

Its important to note that this would be the ONLY federal sales tax and it would ONLY occur during times of war when our Military exceeds its 25% budget.

7. All Primary's take place one the same day

All voters primaries happen on Super Tuesday, one year prior to the presidential election. For people like me in states following the "primary" states, theres not much left to choose from when I get to vote. Every state is supposed to be equal in the eyes of government, thats the purpose of the Electoral College, so this would end the preferential treatment given to primary states during an election. We are all Americans and every state should be treated equally in this regard.

8. Provisions of War

In the event of war, should we ever occupy a foreign country through ground invasion (as is our case in Iraq and Afghanistan), Congress is obligated to operate at least one regular session a year inside the occupied foreign country until the conflict is resolved or the country is secured.

9. Inflationary Concerns

Americans are subject to the negative effects of inflation, so no longer is government going to be insulated from its effects. No system completely mitigates the fluctuating value of currency. Our fed does a decent job of keeping inflation in check, (Greenspan had much better results than Bernanke seems to achieve), but they have to work around the obstacles Government places in the way of private sector.

Having a budget thats tied into the economy and taxing every last working citizen equally, serve as serious incentive for politicians of ANY PARTY to see we are ALL doing well by their policies. (No more class warfare through taxes)

Uncle Sam will care a helluva lot more about keeping inflation in check when it affects his money too and not just ours. Insulating him from inflation, as we do now, has only compounded the budgetary problems we currently face.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FedFarm, I would appreciate if you could let me know about the constitutionality of such proposals.

OK people, feel free to fire away at my suggestions and/or add your own! :)

[Federal Farmer]

I wanted to share a few ideas I had about reforming America. Please feel free to question or comment on what I have proposed or share your own list.

1. Balanced budget requirement

Agree conditionally. The budget must be balanced except during times of war. Without that exception, there's no way we would ever be able to engage in a war, even to defend our own country against invasion.

2. Budgetary Spending and Tax Collection Restrictions

The Federal Budget must meet ONLY those expenditures specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not to be funded by the government, and the budget must be allowed to grow as necessary to meet the requirements of those specifically enumerated items.

Taxation? The FairTax is the best possible means of equitably raising revenue, while at the same time not punishing those in the lower income strata, and should be implemented at the federal, state, and local levels. No more "income taxes" at all. No more "corporate taxes" at all. Only a strict consumption tax, that everyone pays when they make a purchase. If you're not familiar with the FairTax, check it out HERE (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer)

3. Removal of Omnibus Bills

Agree, but again, only those items specifically enumerated in the Constitution may be regulated or funded by Congress. Also, no Congressman may vote on any Bill until he/she has personally read the entire Bill, and no vote for a Bill may be called in less than 60 days from the time it has been presented to the respective House of Congress. In those 60 days, the Bill must be made available to the public through an official website to be set up and maintained by the government, as well as in Public Libraries, giving We The People time to read the Bills, and inform our representatives of how we wish for them to vote on it.

4. Removal of all earmarks

Gone.

Agree

5. Sunset clauses become standard for all new legislation and retroactive for old legislation

Agree in concept. All Laws would be limited to no more than 10 years, and no funding for any law would be for more than the 2 years.

6. Military Budget and War Tax

The budget for the military must be flexible enough to ensure our national security, regardless of any percentage of the national budget, period. Any overlap of technology, equipment, and material though, should be shared with the agencies or entities that benefit from the technology. As far as NASA, while they do provide a definite benefit to our nation, since they are not part of the Article 1 Section 8 specifically enumerated authorities, it would have to be disbanded, or absorbed into the DoD.

7. All Primary's take place one the same day

Agree whole heartedly!:D There's absolutely no reason for the primaries to be strung out over the course of several months. The problem is that it would require a Constitutional Amendment to do so, as the states political parties are allowed to set their own primaries, regardless of when the general election is.

8. Provisions of War

Disagree. It's bad enough that we've got those bleeding hearts in Washington DC, I don't want them anywhere NEAR a combat zone, at all, ever, not even on "fact finding missions", because all they end up doing is pulling resources away from combat operations to play "body guard" for a bunch of self important nincompoops.

9. Inflationary Concerns

Inflation is inflation, and today is tied to the global economy too much for Congress to be able to regulate other than by falsely manipulating pricing such as they did for decades with gasoline price regulations. As far as the best way to make Congress do a better job, I've come up with a more "personal" approach to the problem if you'll bear with me.

First, while the Constitution does provide for Congresscritters to be paid, it does not establish any amount, ergo the following;

1) Senators will be paid the AVERAGE of the citizens of their States, period.

2) Representatives will be paid the AVERAGE of the citizens in their Districts, period.

3) The State or District the Congresscritter is from will pay for and maintain a domicile equivalent to the AVERAGE in that Senators State or Representatives District.

4) Congresscritters are not allowed to receive any payment of any kind for anything other than their service to their State or District while they are in office. No free plane rides, no free tickets to anything, no free dinners (other than those paid for by family members or friends from before they were elected), nothing. They are getting paid to do a job, they are expected to DO the job we're paying them for, and no moonlighting.

5) The government does need to pay for secure transportation, and a driver for Congresscritters, so they will be allowed a secure vehicle comparable to the AVERAGE in their State or District.

Any Senator or Congressman who elects to run for any office other than the one they currently hold must resign their current position before running for another office. I'm not paying my employees to go look for another job, and I resent the heck out of paying my representatives to look for another job on my dime. If I found out that any of my employees were looking for another job "on the clock", they'd be fired so quick, they'd never know what hit 'em.

You can't "represent" someone if you're pulling down mid 6 figures and the people you represent are making $40k a year. You can't "represent" someone if you're living in a mansion while they're living in a 1,200 sq. ft. ranch. You can't "represent" someone if you're being driven around in a stretch limo while they're driving a 5 year old sedan. You can't "represent" someone if you're moonlighting and getting free trips, dinners, tickets, and all of the other perks, and they're busting their butts holding down 2 jobs just to keep the lights turned on, and you sure as H*ll can't "represent" someone if you're spending 2 years looking for another job on their dime!

[NO Obamanation]

I wanted to share a few ideas I had about reforming America. Please feel free to question or comment on what I have proposed or share your own list.

1. Balanced budget requirement

Just that, requires that the budget be correctly balanced annually under threat of removal from office. This extends right down the line of Government and its agencies. In the private sector, you cannot run a deficit every year and expect to keep your job.

2. Budgetary Spending and Tax Collection Restrictions

The Federal Budget cannot grow by more than 1.5% a year and can only grow as a result of budget surplus. To avoid being taxed into oblivion, taxes are capped by a flat tax that affects all persons in the United States at an equal rate and those federal withholdings cannot exceed 30% of income.

(Only actual people able to vote, with a source of income and guaranteed constitutional rights within our government are to be taxed by federal government. Foreign imports are the only inanimate's that face a one time federal tax at their point of entry. Transactions of goods and services between people, as well as property, within the United States are not taxed on a federal level. States would continue to have their own tax policies.)

No longer would there be federal taxes on businesses or industries headquartered and/or operating primarily in the United States.

3. Removal of Omnibus Bills

Unrelated legislation can no longer be lumped together for expediency or political childishness. Each ancillary bill or amendment must be Germain to the bill up for a vote. I.E. an Energy bill can contain only energy related amendments and so on.

4. Removal of all earmarks

Gone.

5. Sunset clauses become standard for all new legislation and retroactive for old legislation

Congress should spend far more of its time going over the piles of previously enacted legislation than writing and passing new laws. Laws must go through review to ensure they are meeting the purpose of their passage. These reviews must take place at least every decade, at most annually, and conclude with a vote to renew (with or without updates) or remove. This work is long overdue because reviewing old legislation, that other people wrote, doesn't get a politician camera time or votes for re-election.

6. Military Budget and War Tax

We disband the Military. Just kidding... The military budget is set to 25% of the Nat Budget during Peacetime and War. Nasa and the military work more closely together to prevent redundancy and waste in R&D of new technology.

If the military is forced to exceed its budget, like say for a real worldwide conflict, a 10% federal sales tax is an option for bringing in additional money.

Its important to note that this would be the ONLY federal sales tax and it would ONLY occur during times of war when our Military exceeds its 25% budget.

7. All Primary's take place one the same day

All voters primaries happen on Super Tuesday, one year prior to the presidential election. For people like me in states following the "primary" states, theres not much left to choose from when I get to vote. Every state is supposed to be equal in the eyes of government, thats the purpose of the Electoral College, so this would end the preferential treatment given to primary states during an election. We are all Americans and every state should be treated equally in this regard.

8. Provisions of War

In the event of war, should we ever occupy a foreign country through ground invasion (as is our case in Iraq and Afghanistan), Congress is obligated to operate at least one regular session a year inside the occupied foreign country until the conflict is resolved or the country is secured.

9. Inflationary Concerns

Americans are subject to the negative effects of inflation, so no longer is government going to be insulated from its effects. No system completely mitigates the fluctuating value of currency. Our fed does a decent job of keeping inflation in check, (Greenspan had much better results than Bernanke seems to achieve), but they have to work around the obstacles Government places in the way of private sector.

Having a budget thats tied into the economy and taxing every last working citizen equally, serve as serious incentive for politicians of ANY PARTY to see we are ALL doing well by their policies. (No more class warfare through taxes)

Uncle Sam will care a helluva lot more about keeping inflation in check when it affects his money too and not just ours. Insulating him from inflation, as we do now, has only compounded the budgetary problems we currently face.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FedFarm, I would appreciate if you could let me know about the constitutionality of such proposals.

OK people, feel free to fire away at my suggestions and/or add your own! :)

I love it

But...

I didn’t see the important part that no one in congress or government for that matter can give their selves a freaking raise. Voters give raises only.

On Super Tuesday west coast starts voting at 5 am and east coast at 8 am, the poles close west coast 8pm east coast 11pm that way they open nation wide and close nation wide at the same time and no one can say so and so took Florida now I may as well not vote.

And every freaking American must show valid ID before they vote, no more dead freaking democrats voting. And if you are caught doing voter fraud its life I prison with no possibility of parole!

No spending tax payer money on people wanting to kill their kids or have sex change operations or any other weird stuff!

Explain NASA again? Do they have to share that portion of the budget with military?

No more subsidies (spelling) no more paying people not to grow wheat on their farms, exc.

Is this a flat tax you are talking about? 10% of your earnings? I could go for that but I would rather not be taxed a dime on what I earn, just on what I spend.

That would promote earning and saving both.

[NO Obamanation]

First, while the Constitution does provide for Congresscritters to be paid, it does not establish any amount, ergo the following;

1) Senators will be paid the AVERAGE of the citizens of their States, period.

2) Representatives will be paid the AVERAGE of the citizens in their Districts, period.

3) The State or District the Congresscritter is from will pay for and maintain a domicile equivalent to the AVERAGE in that Senators State or Representatives District.

4) Congresscritters are not allowed to receive any payment of any kind for anything other than their service to their State or District while they are in office. No free plane rides, no free tickets to anything, no free dinners (other than those paid for by family members or friends from before they were elected), nothing. They are getting paid to do a job, they are expected to DO the job we're paying them for, and no moonlighting.

5) The government does need to pay for secure transportation, and a driver for Congresscritters, so they will be allowed a secure vehicle comparable to the AVERAGE in their State or District.

Any Senator or Congressman who elects to run for any office other than the one they currently hold must resign their current position before running for another office. I'm not paying my employees to go look for another job, and I resent the heck out of paying my representatives to look for another job on my dime. If I found out that any of my employees were looking for another job "on the clock", they'd be fired so quick, they'd never know what hit 'em.

You can't "represent" someone if you're pulling down mid 6 figures and the people you represent are making $40k a year. You can't "represent" someone if you're living in a mansion while they're living in a 1,200 sq. ft. ranch. You can't "represent" someone if you're being driven around in a stretch limo while they're driving a 5 year old sedan. You can't "represent" someone if you're moonlighting and getting free trips, dinners, tickets, and all of the other perks, and they're busting their butts holding down 2 jobs just to keep the lights turned on, and you sure as H*ll can't "represent" someone if you're spending 2 years looking for another job on their dime!




OH I LOVE THIS!

I really wish this could be a law.

Obama has been running for president since about a month after he sat in his stupid senate chair, doing little to nothing at his job but showing up for key votes that makes him look good on the campaign trail.

We could have been rid of a whole lot of jack asses if this were a law. And we wouldn’t be wasting our time with the dumb nut jobs that run for president every 4 years so they can come to Oregon to smoke pot and pick up hairy legged chicks in berkinstalks, like Dennis Kucinich.

[Libsmasher]

1. Balanced budget requirement

Agreed, except for time of war. When the US is at war, all other considerations are secondary.

2. Budgetary Spending and Tax Collection Restrictions

Agreed, except for genuine emergencies, again - wartime.

3. Removal of Omnibus Bills

Disagree - these represent the compromises necessary in a democracy.

4. Removal of all earmarks

Agree.

5. Sunset clauses become standard for all new legislation and retroactive for old legislation

I agree for the new legislation, but a lot of old legislation represents hard-fought battles and compromises - you'd be opening a huge can of worms with this. At a minimium, retroactive sunsets have to be longer - maybe 20 years.

6. Military Budget and War Tax

We disband the Military. Just kidding... The military budget is set to 25% of the Nat Budget during Peacetime and War. Nasa and the military work more closely together to prevent redundancy and waste in R&D of new technology.

If the military is forced to exceed its budget, like say for a real worldwide conflict, a 10% federal sales tax is an option for bringing in additional money.

Its important to note that this would be the ONLY federal sales tax and it would ONLY occur during times of war when our Military exceeds its 25% budget.

Disagree - during wartime, revenue might have to raised quickly. Also disagree with the NASA thing, because NASA needs to be privatized.

7. All Primary's take place one the same day

Disagree. Primaries are organized by private entities - political parties, and their dates are none of the government's business.

8. Provisions of War

Not serious.

[Jarlaxle]

Any taxation or spending increaces must recieve a 2/3 majority in BOTH houses of Congress as well as a Presidential signature before becoming law. Any and all such legislation shall be in effect for no more than two years.

Violation of the Constitution should be punishable by a mandatory firing squad.

Anyone who gets more from the government than they pay in taxes should be declared a ward of the state and should not be permitted to vote. Military & emergency personnel would NOT have their pay counted against them for this purpose.

All voters should be required to provide photo ID to vote. Vote fraud, being nothing less than a direct assault on the country's founding principles, should be punished with mandatory firing squad.

[GenSeneca]

Wow fellas, you have all added some excellent commentary - much appreciated! You guys had a great deal to say so I'll try to address points one at a time but not necessarily in particular order:
I want to get this out of the way quickly - 3. Removal of Omnibus Bills
Disagree - these represent the compromises necessary in a democracy.
I think you're confusing Omnibus Bills with Amendments. What I'm saying is, Politicians cannot attach, for instance, an Iraq withdraw date and time line amendment to a Farm Bill, or Energy Bill... Amendments have to be Germain to the Bill. If you are still for Omnibus Bills - the grouping of unrelated legislation into one bill - Then please make a stronger case as to why these are a part of necessary compromise in a democracy.
-
The budget must be balanced except during times of war.
This seemed like a popular addition - One which I had omitted for this posting. The dilemma, as I see it, is this:
What safeguards or qualifications can be put in place to prevent our Government from keeping us in a perpetual state of war?

Politicians like exploiting loopholes, I don't want us to leave one open for them. Once there is a satisfactory answer, the provision can be added along with the safeguard. I haven't come up with anything solid enough to be satisfied, so lets hear what you think....
-
Federal Budget must meet ONLY those expenditures specifically enumerated in the Constitution....
I would add something like: ...and as explained in the Federalist Papers.
Again, help me to close any loopholes - Think about how these weasels would try to work around even the best legislation and cut them off at the knees.
-
Outside of the confines of items specifically enumerated by the Constitution, the 1.5% cap remains. Within the Constitution, the cap can be removed.
Agree? Additional comments and suggestions are welcome.
-
Any taxation or spending increaces must recieve a 2/3 majority in BOTH houses of Congress as well as a Presidential signature before becoming law.
This is very similar to Cloture voting, which I would like to see strengthened by always requiring 60% of the sitting representatives and not just 60% of those present for the vote. For example, the Senate has 60 members show up for a vote, all 60 have to vote "Yea" for the bill to pass. If all 100 show up, they still need 60.
-
FairTax VS FlatTax As interpreted by Seneca

Fair tax is a Consumption tax, it presumptively only affect people that buy new products. I see that as not being very fair - unless your idea of "fair" is "Those who can afford it". Such a system does nothing to eliminate the class warfare and divisions inflamed by the tax code. There will be far more people NOT paying the tax than paying it - So why not raise it? Suggestions to do so would be very popular, and likely pass, since it effects the "biggest spenders" the most. I also don't like that its open about being a "Progressive" tax.
Flat Tax is an earnings tax, at least as I propose it. All citizens who are old enough to vote (18+) and have some form of income/earnings/dividends etc. will pay the SAME percentage of their income in tax. This way, politicians cannot suggest raising taxes on "THE RICH" without it being devastating to the poor. With such a tax system in place, voters will be far more sensitive about tax increases - "better be for a damn good reason!" - and so politicians will have to find something other than class-warfare to pander and play Robin Hood.
OK, fire away... Lets hear more on this issue. I am not above changing my mind and admitting it, but - "better be for a damn good reason!"
-
1. no Congressman may vote on any Bill until he/she has personally read the entire Bill - How do we police this?
2. no vote for a Bill may be called in less than 60 days from the time it has been presented to the respective House of Congress. - Too long, 30 days max. We don't want our "Congresscriters" sitting around with nothing to do their last two months in office....
3. In those 60 days, the Bill must be made available.... - I find they make the bills available very quickly: GPO Access (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html) contains all published versions of bills from the 103rd (1993-1994) Congress forward. The 110th Congress database is updated by 6 a.m. (EST) daily when bills are published and approved for release. The documents in these databases are available as ASCII text and Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. I find obtaining the bills is pretty fast and easy, its sifting through ALL of it that most people just don't have the time for. This is what needs improvement, translating the information into something the average voter can understand and trust as being reflective of the actual legislation.
-
I agree for the new legislation, but a lot of old legislation represents hard-fought battles and compromises - you'd be opening a huge can of worms with this. At a minimium, retroactive sunsets have to be longer - maybe 20 years.
I'm flexible on the minimum but let me make a case for 10 year retroactive sunset before you settle on 20... Every Decade (10 years) those "Hard-Fought" battles would become like anniversary ceremonies that remind people of why we have that legislation and to show how far we've come as a nation. Politicians would also love to say they voted for the Civil Rights Act of 64, they - and the press - would revel in the PR possibilities this would present.
I would like to see others chime in on this as well... 10? 15? 20?
-
As far as NASA... absorbed into the DoD.-
NASA needs to be privatized.-
Explain NASA again?-
Guess it depends on who you ask as to where they think NASA fits in... Good thing I didn't mention NOAA (http://www.noaa.gov/) or HUD (http://www.hud.gov/).
It was my intention to see more cooperation between NASA and the Military.
I don't believe privatization of NASA would be a good idea. Foreign investors could then take over control and possibly even total ownership of NASA and all of our most sensitive research technology would be open to the world.
Absorbing NASA into the DOD is an interesting concept, I would like to hear more about how this could work... I would like to see both strengthened as a result, not one at the expense of the other.
-
8. Provisions of War
Disagree...pulling resources away from combat operations to play "body guard"
Fed Farm, Point well made and well taken.
Not serious.Actually, it was a little tongue in cheek and I am glad to replace it with:
8. Congressional Provisions -
1) Senators will be paid the AVERAGE of the citizens of their States, period.
2) Representatives will be paid the AVERAGE of the citizens in their Districts, period.
3) The State or District the Congressman is from will pay for and maintain a domicile equivalent to the AVERAGE in that Senators State or Representatives District.
4) Congressmen are not allowed to receive any payment of any kind for anything other than their service to their State or District while they are in office. No free plane rides, no free tickets to anything, no free dinners (other than those paid for by family members or friends from before they were elected), nothing. They are getting paid to do a job, they are expected to DO the job we're paying them for, and no moonlighting.
5) The government does need to pay for secure transportation, and a driver for Congressmen, so they will be allowed a secure vehicle comparable to the AVERAGE in their State or District.
Any Senator or Congressman who elects to run for any office other than the one they currently hold must resign their current position before running for another office.
I suggested 8. as a plan for: "Extending the Congressional Attention Span" and you gave me exactly the kind of thing I was looking for!
Excellent work Fed!
-
9. Inflationary Concerns
Congress to regulate...
I want them to regulate as little as possible. I am searching for ways to make Congress look a little closer at their proposals, the foreseen but ignored consequences and the long term affects. They focus WAY too much on whats best for the next election - Help me to fix that, its bad for the economy AND directly has an influence on inflation, e.g. Taxpayers bailing out the Mortgage Market. We dumped billions onto the market and predictably, inflation went up. We "helped" less than 3% of the mortgage borrowers, ALL of the Lenders and NONE of the regular taxpayers.
-
Disagree. Primaries are organized by private entities - political parties, and their dates are none of the government's business.
You in a primary state? My vote has never counted for squat in the primary and I'm not alone, well in the majority. Besides, we're talking about the President of all the states - giving that much power to so few states seems wrong to me. Convince the others and myself why having primary states produces better candidates than our suggestion would.
-
Super Tuesday west coast starts voting at 5 am and east coast at 8 am, the poles close west coast 8pm east coast 11pm that way they open nation wide and close nation wide at the same time
Excellent! Consider it added.
-
photo ID to vote
valid ID [to] vote
"You evil right wingers... Disenfranchising Democrat voters, so typical."
So we're all agreed, Voter ID is a good thing! :D
-
If I have missed anything you wanted me to address, my apologies, please bring it back up for discussion. Great ideas fellas, maybe some others will join us in the reforms... and please join me in welcoming any newcomers into the conversation.

Please, add new provisions as you may think of them, theres no shortage of things that needs reformed in our government!

[Libsmasher]

The budget must be balanced except during times of war.
This seemed like a popular addition - One which I had omitted for this posting. The dilemma, as I see it, is this:
What safeguards or qualifications can be put in place to prevent our Government from keeping us in a perpetual state of war?


This is no bigee - the congress can cut off money any time they want. Congress DOES need to re-assert it's prerogative to formally declare war, instead of just all the post-WWII resolutions. I've said before here that congress should also state that it will in the future have power to declare war against organizations, (the warfare of the 21st century) not just states. If you want congress to have the power to declare an end to a war formally, that would require a constitutional amendment. Once they start one - it's in the president's ballpark.

As far as NASA... absorbed into the DoD.-
NASA needs to be privatized.-
Explain NASA again?-
Guess it depends on who you ask as to where they think NASA fits in... Good thing I didn't mention NOAA (http://www.noaa.gov/) or HUD (http://www.hud.gov/).
It was my intention to see more cooperation between NASA and the Military.
I don't believe privatization of NASA would be a good idea. Foreign investors could then take over control and possibly even total ownership of NASA and all of our most sensitive research technology would be open to the world.
Absorbing NASA into the DOD is an interesting concept, I would like to hear more about how this could work... I would like to see both strengthened as a result, not one at the expense of the other.

NASA is a giant bureaucracy that is a far remove from the lean and mean daring group of scientists and engineers of decades ago. It's interplanetary exploration is properly a role for a private society. It has been involved in too many failures. It currently is operating the space station, a giant sink for money and a colossal boondoggle in the sky which has no real purpose. The space shuttle has never lived up to it's PR. DOD has a completely different role.

Disagree. Primaries are organized by private entities - political parties, and their dates are none of the government's business.
You in a primary state? My vote has never counted for squat in the primary and I'm not alone, well in the majority. Besides, we're talking about the President of all the states - giving that much power to so few states seems wrong to me. Convince the others and myself why having primary states produces better candidates than our suggestion would.

Don't like how the two major parties, private entities, do it? Found your own party then, and do it the way you want.

[GenSeneca]

This is no bigee - the congress can cut off money any time they want. Congress DOES need to re-assert it's prerogative to formally declare war, instead of just all the post-WWII resolutions. I've said before here that congress should also state that it will in the future have power to declare war against organizations, (the warfare of the 21st century) not just states. If you want congress to have the power to declare an end to a war formally, that would require a constitutional amendment. Once they start one - it's in the president's ballpark.
You seem to misunderstand, Politicians are one rung above lawyers on the food chain - most of them are lawyers - and I don't want some slick talker declaring our "war on drugs" a good enough reason to have no budgetary limits - which keeps feeding the Congressional appetite for philanthropy.

NASA is a giant bureaucracy that is a far remove from the lean and mean daring group of scientists and engineers of decades ago. It's interplanetary exploration is properly a role for a private society. It has been involved in too many failures. It currently is operating the space station, a giant sink for money and a colossal boondoggle in the sky which has no real purpose. The space shuttle has never lived up to it's PR. DOD has a completely different role.
My opinion of NASA, their role and service is decidedly different from your own. I agree NASA needs to be reformed but I would prefer to do it in a way that protects our research and advances in technology from other nations.

Don't like how the two major parties, private entities, do it? Found your own party then, and do it the way you want.

={CaLiCo}= Party
GenSeneca Founder
Now all I need is a few billion dollars.... Anyone spare some change? :)

[BigRob]

={CaLiCo}= Party
GenSeneca Founder
Now all I need is a few billion dollars.... Anyone spare some change? :)

Ill give you 10 bucks if I can write it off :D

[Libsmasher]

My opinion of NASA, their role and service is decidedly different from your own. I agree NASA needs to be reformed but I would prefer to do it in a way that protects our research and advances in technology from other nations.

I've worked on both DOD and NASA projects in the aerospace industry. There already are laws prohibiting the transfer of sensitive technology by anybody. However, as Bubba Clinton's permission to Loral Corp (a big contributor of his) to transfer sensitive missile technology to the PRC showed, they have to be strengthened. This however, has nothing necessarily to do with the issue of privatizing NASA.

[Federal Farmer]

Not much time this morning, off to the office so I'll just hit one of the high spots

-
FairTax VS FlatTax As interpreted by Seneca

Fair tax is a Consumption tax, it presumptively only affect people that buy new products. I see that as not being very fair - unless your idea of "fair" is "Those who can afford it". Such a system does nothing to eliminate the class warfare and divisions inflamed by the tax code. There will be far more people NOT paying the tax than paying it - So why not raise it? Suggestions to do so would be very popular, and likely pass, since it effects the "biggest spenders" the most. I also don't like that its open about being a "Progressive" tax.

I provided a link to the FairTax website, please take the time to study it. If you haven't, I'd also suggest reading the actual legislation, HR 25 and S 1025. The FairTax eliminates the "class warfare and divisions inflamed by the tax code" by ELIMINATING the tax code. No more federal withholding, including Social Security, what you earn is what you're paid (except for State taxes, unless they adopt it too). The FairTax is an inclusive tax, which is paid at the point of purchase, so there is no "getting out of paying it". It eliminates the "underground economy" by compelling (for instance) hookers, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, and anyone else who works for 'cash' to pay the tax when they make a purchase. Again, please study the legislation and read the information on the website, it answers all of your concerns.

Flat Tax is an earnings tax, at least as I propose it. All citizens who are old enough to vote (18+) and have some form of income/earnings/dividends etc. will pay the SAME percentage of their income in tax. This way, politicians cannot suggest raising taxes on "THE RICH" without it being devastating to the poor. With such a tax system in place, voters will be far more sensitive about tax increases - "better be for a damn good reason!" - and so politicians will have to find something other than class-warfare to pander and play Robin Hood.
OK, fire away... Lets hear more on this issue. I am not above changing my mind and admitting it, but - "better be for a damn good reason!"

Therein lies the problem, it is an earnings tax, which was not any part of the FF's original plan. Earnings taxes are an impediment to work since the more you work, the more taxes you pay. It also fails to address the underground economy which could still thrive. The only way, IMHO, to deal with the situation, and get back to the FF's original plan, is to eliminate the IRS, and in it's place, install an income neutral system.

[NO Obamanation]

Agree conditionally. The budget must be balanced except during times of war. Without that exception, there's no way we would ever be able to engage in a war, even to defend our own country against invasion.



The Federal Budget must meet ONLY those expenditures specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not to be funded by the government, and the budget must be allowed to grow as necessary to meet the requirements of those specifically enumerated items.

Taxation? The FairTax is the best possible means of equitably raising revenue, while at the same time not punishing those in the lower income strata, and should be implemented at the federal, state, and local levels. No more "income taxes" at all. No more "corporate taxes" at all. Only a strict consumption tax, that everyone pays when they make a purchase. If you're not familiar with the FairTax, check it out HERE (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer)



Agree, but again, only those items specifically enumerated in the Constitution may be regulated or funded by Congress. Also, no Congressman may vote on any Bill until he/she has personally read the entire Bill, and no vote for a Bill may be called in less than 60 days from the time it has been presented to the respective House of Congress. In those 60 days, the Bill must be made available to the public through an official website to be set up and maintained by the government, as well as in Public Libraries, giving We The People time to read the Bills, and inform our representatives of how we wish for them to vote on it.



Agree



Agree in concept. All Laws would be limited to no more than 10 years, and no funding for any law would be for more than the 2 years.



The budget for the military must be flexible enough to ensure our national security, regardless of any percentage of the national budget, period. Any overlap of technology, equipment, and material though, should be shared with the agencies or entities that benefit from the technology. As far as NASA, while they do provide a definite benefit to our nation, since they are not part of the Article 1 Section 8 specifically enumerated authorities, it would have to be disbanded, or absorbed into the DoD.



Agree whole heartedly!:D There's absolutely no reason for the primaries to be strung out over the course of several months. The problem is that it would require a Constitutional Amendment to do so, as the states political parties are allowed to set their own primaries, regardless of when the general election is.



Disagree. It's bad enough that we've got those bleeding hearts in Washington DC, I don't want them anywhere NEAR a combat zone, at all, ever, not even on "fact finding missions", because all they end up doing is pulling resources away from combat operations to play "body guard" for a bunch of self important nincompoops.



Inflation is inflation, and today is tied to the global economy too much for Congress to be able to regulate other than by falsely manipulating pricing such as they did for decades with gasoline price regulations. As far as the best way to make Congress do a better job, I've come up with a more "personal" approach to the problem if you'll bear with me.

First, while the Constitution does provide for Congresscritters to be paid, it does not establish any amount, ergo the following;

1) Senators will be paid the AVERAGE of the citizens of their States, period.

2) Representatives will be paid the AVERAGE of the citizens in their Districts, period.

3) The State or District the Congresscritter is from will pay for and maintain a domicile equivalent to the AVERAGE in that Senators State or Representatives District.

4) Congresscritters are not allowed to receive any payment of any kind for anything other than their service to their State or District while they are in office. No free plane rides, no free tickets to anything, no free dinners (other than those paid for by family members or friends from before they were elected), nothing. They are getting paid to do a job, they are expected to DO the job we're paying them for, and no moonlighting.

5) The government does need to pay for secure transportation, and a driver for Congresscritters, so they will be allowed a secure vehicle comparable to the AVERAGE in their State or District.

Any Senator or Congressman who elects to run for any office other than the one they currently hold must resign their current position before running for another office. I'm not paying my employees to go look for another job, and I resent the heck out of paying my representatives to look for another job on my dime. If I found out that any of my employees were looking for another job "on the clock", they'd be fired so quick, they'd never know what hit 'em.

You can't "represent" someone if you're pulling down mid 6 figures and the people you represent are making $40k a year. You can't "represent" someone if you're living in a mansion while they're living in a 1,200 sq. ft. ranch. You can't "represent" someone if you're being driven around in a stretch limo while they're driving a 5 year old sedan. You can't "represent" someone if you're moonlighting and getting free trips, dinners, tickets, and all of the other perks, and they're busting their butts holding down 2 jobs just to keep the lights turned on, and you sure as H*ll can't "represent" someone if you're spending 2 years looking for another job on their dime!

Hey!

I like that fair tax, it is just like the plan I wanted. You have the incentive to save money not spend it but everyone pays because everyone buys. What are the chances of this sort of tax ever really happening?

[Federal Farmer]

Hey!

I like that fair tax, it is just like the plan I wanted. You have the incentive to save money not spend it but everyone pays because everyone buys. What are the chances of this sort of tax ever really happening?

It's gaining momentum all the time. If you're really interested, just go to the FairTax.org website, read up on it some more, and then e-mail, and write your Senators and your Representative telling them that you expect them to support the FairTax if they are to expect your vote in the next election. There are GrassRoots efforts all over the country that you can join, which also gets the attention of our elected employees.

[Federal Farmer]

The budget must be balanced except during times of war.
This seemed like a popular addition - One which I had omitted for this posting. The dilemma, as I see it, is this:
What safeguards or qualifications can be put in place to prevent our Government from keeping us in a perpetual state of war?

Politicians like exploiting loopholes, I don't want us to leave one open for them. Once there is a satisfactory answer, the provision can be added along with the safeguard. I haven't come up with anything solid enough to be satisfied, so lets hear what you think....

Unfortunately, for the forseeable future, we are going to be in a perpetual state of war, the GWOT. The difference with this one is that by comparison to all of our previous wars, it's a low-intensity conflict, and as time goes on, will mostly be waged by Special Ops forces rather than our conventional forces, so the costs will be relatively minimal. Even everyones favorite bugger-bear of the moment, Iran, won't require the inclusion of massive ground forces like Iraq has, simply because we're not the least bit interested in removing Achmed Pajamabottoms, or the Ayatolla Assaholea of the moment, all we have to do is a very few selective surgical air strikes, and they're crippled.
-
Federal Budget must meet ONLY those expenditures specifically enumerated in the Constitution....
I would add something like: ...and as explained in the Federalist Papers.
Again, help me to close any loopholes - Think about how these weasels would try to work around even the best legislation and cut them off at the knees.

I really wish you hadn't mentioned the Federalist Papers. The Federalist was primarily written by Hamilton, who was a monarchist, and is primarily responsible for the mess we're in today. He is the one that advocated for our original national debt, he is the one that pushed for the "national bank" which brought on the "speculators" that are the primary reason behind our inflation, and outrageous fuel prices (among other things) today. No, mandating that the "Congress may fund only those agencies and programs specifically enumerated in the Constitution" leaves no "wiggle room" that I can see. If you do see any, please list them so that they can be addressed.
-
Outside of the confines of items specifically enumerated by the Constitution, the 1.5% cap remains. Within the Constitution, the cap can be removed.
Agree? Additional comments and suggestions are welcome.

Addressed above.
-
Any taxation or spending increaces must recieve a 2/3 majority in BOTH houses of Congress as well as a Presidential signature before becoming law.
This is very similar to Cloture voting, which I would like to see strengthened by always requiring 60% of the sitting representatives and not just 60% of those present for the vote. For example, the Senate has 60 members show up for a vote, all 60 have to vote "Yea" for the bill to pass. If all 100 show up, they still need 60.

Not that I disagree with your proposal, but it would require a Constitutional Amendment in order to do so.
-
I'm flexible on the minimum but let me make a case for 10 year retroactive sunset before you settle on 20... Every Decade (10 years) those "Hard-Fought" battles would become like anniversary ceremonies that remind people of why we have that legislation and to show how far we've come as a nation. Politicians would also love to say they voted for the Civil Rights Act of 64, they - and the press - would revel in the PR possibilities this would present.
I would like to see others chime in on this as well... 10? 15? 20?

10 years is sufficient. As for existing Law, it's time they rolled up their sleeves and got to work getting rid of all of the old, out of date laws on the books anyway. Anything less than 20 years old, can wait until it is 20 years old to sunset before being addressed, anything older than 20 years, well, they're finally going to earn their money.

As for the Voting Rights Act of '68, that thing needs to be ripped out of the books yesterday. It's long past time people figured out that the Constitution itself, specifically Section II of the 14th Amendment, and the 19th and 26th Amendments already address everyones "right to vote" (there IS no "right to vote", it is your State that permits you to vote). The Voting Rights Act of '68 was a band-aid fix to a sucking chest wound problem, and has no true authority as it is not a Constitutional Amendment, nor is it in keeping with the provisions of Article I Section VIII of the Constitution.
-

It was my intention to see more cooperation between NASA and the Military.
I don't believe privatization of NASA would be a good idea. Foreign investors could then take over control and possibly even total ownership of NASA and all of our most sensitive research technology would be open to the world.
Absorbing NASA into the DOD is an interesting concept, I would like to hear more about how this could work... I would like to see both strengthened as a result, not one at the expense of the other.

The only way for us to be in compliance with the Constitution is for NASA to be absorbed into one of the specifically enumerated "agencies", or for there to be a Constitutional Amendment specifically authorizing it. The fact is that Article I Section IX already prohibits such expendatures as it says; "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;...", and given the that only legal "laws" are those authorized by Article I Section VIII, in which NASA is not covered, their funding (along with over 65% of our entire Federal Budget) is illegal.

Oh, and far as HUD, DEFUND THEM NOW!

8. Congressional Provisions -
I suggested 8. as a plan for: "Extending the Congressional Attention Span" and you gave me exactly the kind of thing I was looking for!
Excellent work Fed!

My pleasure, happy to be of assistance.
-
9. Inflationary Concerns
Congress to regulate...
I want them to regulate as little as possible. I am searching for ways to make Congress look a little closer at their proposals, the foreseen but ignored consequences and the long term affects. They focus WAY too much on whats best for the next election - Help me to fix that, its bad for the economy AND directly has an influence on inflation, e.g. Taxpayers bailing out the Mortgage Market. We dumped billions onto the market and predictably, inflation went up. We "helped" less than 3% of the mortgage borrowers, ALL of the Lenders and NONE of the regular taxpayers.

Congress doesn't have the Constitutional authority to regulate ANYTHING that isn't in Article I Section VIII, or as specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, PERIOD. As for them bailing anyone out, unless their money is in a federally insured account, tough titty said the kitty who had no milk, it just sucks to be you.
-
Disagree. Primaries are organized by private entities - political parties, and their dates are none of the government's business.
You in a primary state? My vote has never counted for squat in the primary and I'm not alone, well in the majority. Besides, we're talking about the President of all the states - giving that much power to so few states seems wrong to me. Convince the others and myself why having primary states produces better candidates than our suggestion would.

As I said earlier, I wholeheartedly agree with you, but it would take a Constitutional Amendment to do so. Personally I believe it would be better for the country as a whole to have the initial primary, on the same day, and take the top 2 from each party, and have another primary, say 8 weeks later, and again on the same day, to whittle it down to the ones that go on to represent their respective Party.

[BigRob]

It's gaining momentum all the time. If you're really interested, just go to the FairTax.org website, read up on it some more, and then e-mail, and write your Senators and your Representative telling them that you expect them to support the FairTax if they are to expect your vote in the next election. There are GrassRoots efforts all over the country that you can join, which also gets the attention of our elected employees.

I used to work in different Senator's offices and (especially when you are on the bottom of the totem pole) seeing these long petitions was the worst part of my day lol. I will say this though, when you send in some huge petition to an office like this, the first thing that will happen is everyone who signed it that is not from the state the office represents will get removed from the list, making petitions much less imposing and seemingly much less massive.

[Federal Farmer]

I used to work in different Senator's offices and (especially when you are on the bottom of the totem pole) seeing these long petitions was the worst part of my day lol. I will say this though, when you send in some huge petition to an office like this, the first thing that will happen is everyone who signed it that is not from the state the office represents will get removed from the list, making petitions much less imposing and seemingly much less massive.

Thanks for pointing that out. I meant to, but obviously overlooked it, good catch. :D

The GrassRoots efforts (at least in my area) are broken down by Congressional Districts, and we each sign 3 separate petitions, so that the petitions can be directed to our individual Representatives, and then the State office gathers all of the ones for the Senators together, from all over the State, and forwards them on to our Senators, and just to make sure they don't forget us, we send them in EVERY MONTH.

[GenSeneca]

I provided a link to the FairTax website, please take the time to study it... it answers all of your concerns.

You won't like my findings:

Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.

The rich and the poor pay different percentages.... Not my idea of "Fair" and doesn't treat us equally.

Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted.

I thought the FairTax was supposed to eliminate class warfare? Still looks like its there to me.... just much softer than the IRS system.

there is no "getting out of paying it".

Under the FairTax Plan, poor people pay no net FairTax at all up to the poverty level!

Here it says some people don't pay any 'net' tax at all.... I guess they get a tax refund. Effectively meaning there are those who will get out of paying it.
-
Now I mentioned that I didn't like "Progressive" systems, this is a progressive tax:
The prebate is the most equitable and most efficient way to make the FairTax progressive.

That suggests to me there is no limit to the tax... its on the "informed" public to keep the tax low - and to keep it from being shifted to the rich - by following their civic duty and keeping politicians in check.

The Federalist was primarily written by Hamilton, who was a monarchist, and is primarily responsible for the mess we're in today.

Ultimately, the tax rate will be dictated by the size of government. If government gets larger, higher tax rates will be required. If government shrinks relative to the economy, then the tax rate will fall. Federalist 21, by Alexander Hamilton, is a great read on the futility of government raising a consumption tax too high, and thus reducing revenues.

Oddly enough, they use Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Papers to support the FairTax but Hamilton expresses the very same concern about the FairTax that I have.

...of course Congress can raise the FairTax rate just as it could raise the flat tax rate or can and does raise the income tax rate.

So what this will lead to is an ever increasing tax, with ever increasing "prebates" - for an ever increasing number of people so politicians can continue to pander - and the tax will be shifted primarily onto those in the upper classes.... Your site confirmed all my concerns as being accurate.

Therein lies the problem, it is an earnings tax, which was not any part of the FF's original plan. Earnings taxes are an impediment to work since the more you work, the more taxes you pay. It also fails to address the underground economy which could still thrive. The only way, IMHO, to deal with the situation, and get back to the FF's original plan, is to eliminate the IRS, and in it's place, install an income neutral system.

With my plan of a flat tax, everyone pays something like 10% of their income, rich, poor, white, black, everybody with an income and without exception. Thats true equality and fairness, there is zero bias in tax rate and the legislature would have to raise taxes on everyone, especially including the poor, to affect the rich... That system would eliminate class warfare.

The FairTax site mentions some drawbacks and flaws in a Flat Tax system:
The flat tax, however, retains the invasive income tax administration apparatus and can easily revert to a graduated, convoluted mess, as it has many times over many years.
Not mine. Mines no more complicated than the Fair Tax, 10%* is automatically withheld from your paycheck and/or earnings like the FICA tax currently is, and its much lower than FICA. I don't see this requiring anything more than a federal sales tax (FairTax) would require to administrate the funds.
a large part of the burden of the flat tax -- the business tax --
I was very specific, only flesh and blood VOTERS with income get taxed. This excludes all business from the tax.
Under a flat tax, individuals would still file an income tax return each year similar to today’s 1040 EZ.
Not under mine. No need for ANY filing - There ARE NO rebates, prebates or other forms of return, thus negating the purpose of filing.
Under the flat tax, the payroll tax would be retained and income tax withholding would still be with us.
Not under mine. All federal - not state or local - withholdings would now total 10% regardless of the persons income or wealth.
Its also worth pointing out that the FairTax aims to bring in at least as much money is currently brought in, thats some 3 trillion dollars.... I have no current way of means testing my flat tax but I expect it to fall far short of 3 trillion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see the definite benefits of the FairTax and agree that all the FlatTax proposals to date have been flawed. However, I believe I have built a better mousetrap in this regard.

Imagine this - My flat tax on the National level and your Fair Tax on the State level. Suddenly the states - NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - would be awash in money, putting them in a much better position to flex their states rights. As it is now, the fed can basically blackmail states by withholding federal dollars until the state comes into compliance.

Shifting the power of money to the side of the state would also ensure that the federal government was ONLY involved in programs specifically enumerated by the constitution - as it couldn't afford much else.

[Federal Farmer]

You won't like my findings:

Well, let's take a look at them then.;)

The rich and the poor pay different percentages.... Not my idea of "Fair" and doesn't treat us equally.

I believe you jumped the gun there GS. What they are talking about is the differential related to the prebate.

"The FairTax is regressive and shifts the tax burden onto lower and middle income people"

The truth: The FairTax actually eliminates and reimburses all federal taxes for those below the poverty line. This is accomplished through the universal prebate and by eliminating the highly regressive FICA payroll tax. Today, low and moderate income Americans pay far more in FICA taxes than income taxes. Those spending at twice the poverty level pay a FairTax of only 11.5 percent -- a rate much lower than the income and payroll tax burden they bear today. Meanwhile, the wealthy pay the 23 percent retail sales tax on their retail purchases.

The universal prebate essentially pays the FairTax rate on the "basic necessities of life" for ALL Americans, regardless of income, everyone gets the same amount every month. This way, no American will be paying taxes on food, or other "basic necessities". Since those near or below the poverty line spend a substantially larger portion of their income on the "basic necessities of life" than on "luxuries", the universal prebate will virtually eliminate their taxes, while those in higher income brackets will continue to buy the "luxuries" that lower income families cannot avail themselves of, so of course they will be paying more in taxes, but they will NOT be paying taxes on the "basic necessities".

I thought the FairTax was supposed to eliminate class warfare? Still looks like its there to me.... just much softer than the IRS system.

Again, let's keep things in context shall we?

Consider, for example, your typical billionaire, of which America now has more than 400. These fortunate few are invested primarily in equities on which they pay taxes at a 15 percent rate, whether their income comes in the form of capital gains or dividends. In addition to having the income from their wealth taxed at a low rate, the principal of their wealth is completely untaxed either directly or indirectly. Assuming they and their heirs spend only the income earned on the wealth each year, the tax rate today is 15 percent. In contrast, under the FairTax, the effective tax rate is 23 percent. Hence, the very wealthy will pay more taxes when the FairTax is enacted. In a nutshell, those who spend more will pay more but low, moderate and middle income taxpayers will benefit from the greatest gains in reduced tax liabilities.

Let's consider the case of Warren Buffett (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece), the third wealthiest man in America today. He himself went on a tear recently because the IRS tax code allows him to pay less, as a percentage, in taxes than his secretary and his cleaner! By his own admission, he was taxed at 17.7% on the $46 million he earned, while his secretary was taxed at 30% on the $60,000 she earned. All the FairTax does, by eliminating the IRS income tax collections arm, is to ensure that EVERYONE, regardless of income, is paying the same rate of taxes on their purchases. If everyone is paying the same percentage, where's the "class warfare"?


there is no "getting out of paying it".

Here it says some people don't pay any 'net' tax at all.... I guess they get a tax refund. Effectively meaning there are those who will get out of paying it.

I fear you're not fully understanding how the "prebate" works. EVERYONE gets it, the difference is that the poor spend the majority of their money on the basics, and since the "prebate" covers the cost of the taxes on the basics, the poor won't be paying any taxes, on the basics, which will free up that portion of their money to spend on "luxery" items, that WILL be taxed.
-
Now I mentioned that I didn't like "Progressive" systems, this is a progressive tax:

Again, I fear you don't fully appreciate the way the "prebate" works. The only thing "progressive" about the FairTax is that the more you spend OVER the poverty line (that the prebate covers), the more you'll be paying in taxes, but that's all. The "prebate", for a family of 4 (parents and 2 children), works out to be about $537.00 a month, while a single person, with no children, would receive about $199 a month. The fact is that all the "prebate" does is cover the taxes for the "basic necessities" and nothing more.

That suggests to me there is no limit to the tax... its on the "informed" public to keep the tax low - and to keep it from being shifted to the rich - by following their civic duty and keeping politicians in check.

You're essentially correct, there isn't, but only because the rate is fixed, and the amont of taxes that anyone pays is directly proportional to the amount of purchases one makes.

The Federalist was primarily written by Hamilton, who was a monarchist, and is primarily responsible for the mess we're in today.



Oddly enough, they use Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Papers to support the FairTax but Hamilton expresses the very same concern about the FairTax that I have.

Can Congress just simply raise the rate once the FairTax is passed into law?

Yes, of course Congress can raise the FairTax rate just as it could raise the flat tax rate or can and does raise the income tax rate. And if we in the grass roots allow them to do it, shame on us!

Again, context is everything. Firstly, Hamilton was a monarchist, but that doesn't mean he was stupid, and it doesn't aleviate him of the responsibility for the "tax and spend" mentality we have.

However, the FairTax is highly visible. And because there is only one tax rate, it will be very hard for Congress to adopt the typical divide-and-conquer, hide-and-disguise strategy employed today to ratchet up the burden gradually, by manipulating the income tax code. Ultimately, the tax rate will be dictated by the size of government. If government gets larger, higher tax rates will be required. If government shrinks relative to the economy, then the tax rate will fall. Federalist 21, by Alexander Hamilton, is a great read on the futility of government raising a consumption tax too high, and thus reducing revenues.

So what this will lead to is an ever increasing tax, with ever increasing "prebates" - for an ever increasing number of people so politicians can continue to pander - and the tax will be shifted primarily onto those in the upper classes.... Your site confirmed all my concerns as being accurate.

GS, there is no "shifting" of the tax burden. Even if they increase the rate of the "prebate", even the wealthiest Americans will get it, just like the poor will, so "pandering" isn't going to effect it. As far as confirming anything, I would suggest that you go back and study it again.

To be perfectly honest, anyone who comes out with a stance, either for or against the FairTax, after anything less than 2 weeks of serious study, simply hasn't given it enough thought and is jumping the gun (no insult intended). Even after it came out, it took hard core professional economists, from both sides of the aisle MONTHS to study it, and apply it to our current economy, and the majority of them support it. The only people I'm aware of who are against it are people like Bruce Bartlett and that nimnod Stephen Moore.

With my plan of a flat tax, everyone pays something like 10% of their income, rich, poor, white, black, everybody with an income and without exception. Thats true equality and fairness, there is zero bias in tax rate and the legislature would have to raise taxes on everyone, especially including the poor, to affect the rich... That system would eliminate class warfare.

I understand what you're driving at, but any flat rate income tax, is STILL an income tax. Perhaps I missed something, but I was under the impression that we were supposed to be working towards going back to an "original meaning" of the Constitution; Did I misunderstand? The Constitution, as written by the FF's specifically prohibited any type of tax that wasn't directly apportioned, and income taxes most certainly are NOT apportioned. The other thing that I oppose about any form of income tax is that it takes money out of the pockets of those least able to afford it, which is why I love the FairTax. Even to this day in my home state, they do not collect any taxes on unprepared food at the grocery store, because it is considered a sin to make people pay taxes on the most basic necessity of life. The FairTax, through the prebate, untaxes that necessity, your system still taxes it, before they can even go buy it. Maybe it's just me, because I did grow up poor, but dammit, when you have to watch your mother try to decide between paying the light bill or buying food because the goddamned government took her money before she could even buy food, that's FUBAR (f@ckedupbeyondallrecognition), and you don't forget it.

[BigRob]

Let's consider the case of Warren Buffett (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece), the third wealthiest man in America today. He himself went on a tear recently because the IRS tax code allows him to pay less, as a percentage, in taxes than his secretary and his cleaner! By his own admission, he was taxed at 17.7% on the $46 million he earned, while his secretary was taxed at 30% on the $60,000 she earned. All the FairTax does, by eliminating the IRS income tax collections arm, is to ensure that EVERYONE, regardless of income, is paying the same rate of taxes on their purchases. If everyone is paying the same percentage, where's the "class warfare"?



I am a bit confused since she falls in the 25% bracket. Something else is at work here.

[Federal Farmer]

I am a bit confused since she falls in the 25% bracket. Something else is at work here.

It all depends on her deductions.

[BigRob]

It all depends on her deductions.

Wel you cant deduction yourself up to the 30% bracket. She has to have other sources of income if she is getting taxed at this rate.

[Truth-Bringer]

I wanted to share a few ideas I had about reforming America. Please feel free to question or comment on what I have proposed or share your own list.

1. Balanced budget requirement

Just that, requires that the budget be correctly balanced annually under threat of removal from office. This extends right down the line of Government and its agencies. In the private sector, you cannot run a deficit every year and expect to keep your job.

2. Budgetary Spending and Tax Collection Restrictions

The Federal Budget cannot grow by more than 1.5% a year and can only grow as a result of budget surplus. To avoid being taxed into oblivion, taxes are capped by a flat tax that affects all persons in the United States at an equal rate and those federal withholdings cannot exceed 30% of income.

(Only actual people able to vote, with a source of income and guaranteed constitutional rights within our government are to be taxed by federal government. Foreign imports are the only inanimate's that face a one time federal tax at their point of entry. Transactions of goods and services between people, as well as property, within the United States are not taxed on a federal level. States would continue to have their own tax policies.)

No longer would there be federal taxes on businesses or industries headquartered and/or operating primarily in the United States.

3. Removal of Omnibus Bills

Unrelated legislation can no longer be lumped together for expediency or political childishness. Each ancillary bill or amendment must be Germain to the bill up for a vote. I.E. an Energy bill can contain only energy related amendments and so on.

4. Removal of all earmarks

Gone.

5. Sunset clauses become standard for all new legislation and retroactive for old legislation

Congress should spend far more of its time going over the piles of previously enacted legislation than writing and passing new laws. Laws must go through review to ensure they are meeting the purpose of their passage. These reviews must take place at least every decade, at most annually, and conclude with a vote to renew (with or without updates) or remove. This work is long overdue because reviewing old legislation, that other people wrote, doesn't get a politician camera time or votes for re-election.

6. Military Budget and War Tax

We disband the Military. Just kidding... The military budget is set to 25% of the Nat Budget during Peacetime and War. Nasa and the military work more closely together to prevent redundancy and waste in R&D of new technology.

If the military is forced to exceed its budget, like say for a real worldwide conflict, a 10% federal sales tax is an option for bringing in additional money.

Its important to note that this would be the ONLY federal sales tax and it would ONLY occur during times of war when our Military exceeds its 25% budget.

7. All Primary's take place one the same day

All voters primaries happen on Super Tuesday, one year prior to the presidential election. For people like me in states following the "primary" states, theres not much left to choose from when I get to vote. Every state is supposed to be equal in the eyes of government, thats the purpose of the Electoral College, so this would end the preferential treatment given to primary states during an election. We are all Americans and every state should be treated equally in this regard.

8. Provisions of War

In the event of war, should we ever occupy a foreign country through ground invasion (as is our case in Iraq and Afghanistan), Congress is obligated to operate at least one regular session a year inside the occupied foreign country until the conflict is resolved or the country is secured.

9. Inflationary Concerns

Americans are subject to the negative effects of inflation, so no longer is government going to be insulated from its effects. No system completely mitigates the fluctuating value of currency. Our fed does a decent job of keeping inflation in check, (Greenspan had much better results than Bernanke seems to achieve), but they have to work around the obstacles Government places in the way of private sector.

Having a budget thats tied into the economy and taxing every last working citizen equally, serve as serious incentive for politicians of ANY PARTY to see we are ALL doing well by their policies. (No more class warfare through taxes)

Uncle Sam will care a helluva lot more about keeping inflation in check when it affects his money too and not just ours. Insulating him from inflation, as we do now, has only compounded the budgetary problems we currently face.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FedFarm, I would appreciate if you could let me know about the constitutionality of such proposals.

OK people, feel free to fire away at my suggestions and/or add your own! :)

I like all the suggestions (especially number 8). I would definitely vote in favor of trying all of these suggestions if we were both in Congress and you were introducing this as a bill. Although I ultimately favor a total repeal of any tax on income or earnings. I would rather repeal the income tax and just keep the excise taxes in place. It would supply sufficient revenue if government was limited to its true Constitutional measures.

[Federal Farmer]

Wel you cant deduction yourself up to the 30% bracket. She has to have other sources of income if she is getting taxed at this rate.

If she's married and has children, and her husband is using her and the children on his W-2, then she's not taking any deductions at all.

Besides all of that, the point is that Warren Buffett is taxed at 17.7% while his secretary is taxed at a substantially higher rate, and it's BS.

[BigRob]

If she's married and has children, and her husband is using her and the children on his W-2, then she's not taking any deductions at all.

Besides all of that, the point is that Warren Buffett is taxed at 17.7% while his secretary is taxed at a substantially higher rate, and it's BS.

Who do you think has more impact on creating jobs with their tax savings? And if her husband is making money, its not the tax codes fault that she gets taxes if they file jointly since they both generate basically 1 income.

[GenSeneca]

I fear you're not fully understanding how the "prebate" works. EVERYONE gets it....a family of 4 (parents and 2 children), works out to be about $537.00 a month, while a single person, with no children, would receive about $199 a month.

Government cuts everyone a monthly check... :(

... Sorry, but I see this turning into a huge entitlement program with the redistribution of wealth at its core.

Eliminate the prebates, make it a full blown "luxury tax", with exemptions that specify what "necessities" are, while keeping the tax at or below 15% and you got something I could sign onto... In fact I just wrote it, so I'll change my income tax to a sales tax that exempts necessities.
--------------------------------------------------
I thought with all the people who wanted "Change", there would be no shortage of suggestions for government reform....

[Federal Farmer]

Government cuts everyone a monthly check... :(

... Sorry, but I see this turning into a huge entitlement program with the redistribution of wealth at its core.

Gen, it's a PREBATE. All they're doing is untaxing the basic necessities of life in a way that makes it easier on the business owners! Think about it this way, in my home state, when you go to the grocery store, the store owner has to pay somebody boucoups bucks to program the scanners to NOT charge tax on unprepared food items, and that cost is passed along to the consumer.

Under the FairTax, the store owners no longer have to do that, so the SAVINGS are passed along to the consumer. Their calculations also untax gasoline, basic clothing, and all of the other "basic necessities of life" so that NOBODY is being taxed merely for LIVING. Now, would you rather have the Federal government, you know, the same ones who can't really seem to decide of we need to be drilling off of our own coasts, or in ANWAR, decide exactly what the "basic necessities of life" are, and have to provide a specific list to the owners of every business in America, so that they don't tax those specific items, or isn't it a hell of a lot smarter to simply tell all the business's what the inclusive tax rate is going to be, and simply send a prebate check to every LEGAL American to compensate for the taxes, and let the Americans decide what specific "basic necessities" they want to spend their money on? No, if you have to produce a list of things that are not to be taxed, all you're doing is creating a new bureaucracy (that's going to cost billions to run) that will replace one of the ones that the FairTax eliminates.

That's the other great thing about the prebate, only LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS get the check, illegals don't, so they're finally going to be paying their fair share of taxes (that they're not paying now) when they come here to work (illegally), and spend their money in our stores, instead of being able to skirt around it by working strictly for cash, under the table, and not paying any taxes at all.

[Federal Farmer]

Who do you think has more impact on creating jobs with their tax savings? And if her husband is making money, its not the tax codes fault that she gets taxes if they file jointly since they both generate basically 1 income.

It's not the tax codes fault? The tax code is the single biggest impediment to job creation in America today. Study the history of the tax code and you'll see what happens when the government is allowed to extort as much money from We The People as they want to, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of the money they're STEALING from us is spent on totally un-constitutional things.

It costs me a bundle every year to have my accountant do my taxes, on top of the cost of matching Social Security, etc., etc., etc., and any accountant worth his salt will readily tell you that they absolutely HATE doing income taxes, corporate taxes, or any other taxes for that matter, and would much rather do what accountants are supposed to be doing, making sure that their clients businesses are profitable.

The FairTax eliminates the federal income tax altogether, and replaces it with a simple consumption tax, so that everyone, regardless of income, decides how much they want to give the government by way of their taxes, based strictly upon what they decide they want to spend their money on. It gets the governments guns out of our ribs, and jack booted thugs off of our throats, and places the power right back where the FF's envisioned it to be, with We The People.

[GenSeneca]

Gen, it's a PREBATE.
By any other name, its still a check from the government.
It beats the IRS but thats not saying much... Who likes the IRS?
------------------------------------------------------------
Going back to Reforms...
What kind of reforms can be made for how we prosecute wars?

I was thinking about gold as well... Does anyone know how much gold is in America and if we import or export more per year?

What would happen if America "cornered the market" and began stockpiling such a commodity? We already have a gold reserve I know, the Public just hasn't seen the gold in 40 years... Would there be any serious implications or drawbacks to converting currency to gold? Of course, inflation of the dollar and a gold bubble would combine to come out a net plus if we traded dollars for gold while inflation was increasing and sold gold once inflation stabilized to deflate the gold bubble. Just thinking out loud, jump in...

[Federal Farmer]

By any other name, its still a check from the government.
It beats the IRS but thats not saying much... Who likes the IRS?

Nobody likes the IRS. I believe, and I could be mistaken, that you're still confusing the prebate with some form of "welfare". When you get a refund check from the IRS when you file your taxes (if you do, myself, I always end up paying, but that's a rant for another thread), do you consider that to be "welfare"? The difference between a "refund" check, and the "prebate" check is all in when you get it. If it'll make you feel any better, look at it this way, with the FairTax, the first "prebate" check you get will be a "stimulus check" like most people got this year, and every check after that is a refund check (like you currently get once a year, only now, you'll be getting it every month) for all the taxes you overpaid.
------------------------------------------------------------
Going back to Reforms...
What kind of reforms can be made for how we prosecute wars?

Lacking a Constitutional Amendment where by Congress would be REQUIRED to make a formal declaration of war, I don't have the answer. Also, it would be necessary to ensure that none of our treaties allowed for any intervention in the affairs of a foreign nation. The problem with most of this is that, other than purely national defense, most of our wars have been about ensuring our access to free and unfettered international trade, whether by preemptively stopping a threat to that trade, or by engaging once the threat has manifested itself.

I was thinking about gold as well... Does anyone know how much gold is in America and if we import or export more per year?

What would happen if America "cornered the market" and began stockpiling such a commodity? We already have a gold reserve I know, the Public just hasn't seen the gold in 40 years... Would there be any serious implications or drawbacks to converting currency to gold? Of course, inflation of the dollar and a gold bubble would combine to come out a net plus if we traded dollars for gold while inflation was increasing and sold gold once inflation stabilized to deflate the gold bubble. Just thinking out loud, jump in...

As I mentioned elsewhere, attaching our economy to any tangible assert in this day and age is extremely dangerous. Looking at your gold example, assume for a moment that we are able to corner the world market on currently available gold; what happens if 2 years from now Luxembourg suddenly discovers the largest gold deposits ever discovered right under their own feet, and they start producing those deposits and flood the market? Our economy could tank over night, and unless we invade Luxembourg and seize their mines, there's nothing we can do about it.

No, at this point, having our economy tied to our own productivity as a nation is the only way to ensure the long term stability of our economy. There's also the fact that there's so little gold in the entire world, that at the current exchange rate, it doesn't equal 2 years of our budget, much less the rest of the world, which would require a total revaluation of the entire worlds net worth! That alone would not only wreck the worlds economies, but would probably lead to massive wars from the fallout.

[GenSeneca]

Nobody likes the IRS. I believe, and I could be mistaken, that you're still confusing the prebate with some form of "welfare". When you get a refund check from the IRS when you file your taxes (if you do, myself, I always end up paying, but that's a rant for another thread), do you consider that to be "welfare"? The difference between a "refund" check, and the "prebate" check is all in when you get it. If it'll make you feel any better, look at it this way, with the FairTax, the first "prebate" check you get will be a "stimulus check" like most people got this year, and every check after that is a refund check (like you currently get once a year, only now, you'll be getting it every month) for all the taxes you overpaid.
I complained about getting a stimulus check, it was just expensive election year pandering. Money I didn't overpay - someone much richer than myself overpaid - and I get that persons money via the government. The equitable redistribution of wealth...
What fears of abuse do you have for the fair tax? What do think the worst case scenario would be and how likely...?

As I mentioned elsewhere, attaching our economy to any tangible assert in this day and age is extremely dangerous. Looking at your gold example, assume for a moment that we are able to corner the world market on currently available gold; what happens if 2 years from now Luxembourg suddenly discovers the largest gold deposits ever discovered right under their own feet, and they start producing those deposits and flood the market? Our economy could tank over night, and unless we invade Luxembourg and seize their mines, there's nothing we can do about it.

No, at this point, having our economy tied to our own productivity as a nation is the only way to ensure the long term stability of our economy. There's also the fact that there's so little gold in the entire world, that at the current exchange rate, it doesn't equal 2 years of our budget, much less the rest of the world, which would require a total revaluation of the entire worlds net worth! That alone would not only wreck the worlds economies, but would probably lead to massive wars from the fallout.

Sounds like an argument for why we should not return to the gold standard... and a very good one at that.

I know inflation and some of its causes, what kind of events or circumstances trigger Deflation? I would like to know more about ways we could deflate the currency... It would be nice to have American dollars worth so much, other countries would be asking for us to make half-pennies. Really bring some value back to our currency.

The American dollar is a standard for many transactions on the world markets. Strengthening our dollar would strengthen our economic position in the world and give us greater leverage in trade deals, would it not?

[Federal Farmer]

I complained about getting a stimulus check, it was just expensive election year pandering. Money I didn't overpay - someone much richer than myself overpaid - and I get that persons money via the government. The equitable redistribution of wealth...

Well, you may not have "overpaid", but as hard as I get hammered every year for taxes, both for my business and personally, even with all of the deductions, I'll take what I can get! The thing I like the most about the FairTax is that, for all intents and purposes, it eliminates the IRS. No more income tax, no more Social Security tax, no more Medicare tax, no more corporate tax, no more capital gains tax, no more gift taxes, no more estate taxes, no more national federal sales tax (like on gasoline), NO MORE!

As far as any "redistribution of wealth", if by that you mean any and all Social Programs, the FairTax isn't a government reform Bill, it's a tax reform Bill, so it doesn't address those.

Election year pandering? What about the stimulus checks that went out a couple of years ago, when it wasn't an election year? No, it's not "pandering", the stimulus checks were exactly what they said they were, a way to get more money into the public to stimulate the economy.

What fears of abuse do you have for the fair tax? What do think the worst case scenario would be and how likely...?

My biggest concerns about the FairTax are that even should it go into effect, including the receipts from the untapped underground economy, that the rate will not be reduced in order to make it truly "revenue neutral", but that's not a failing of the Legislation, that would be a failing of the Congress. The only disadvantage I forsee, again, from Congress and not from the Legislation, is that Congress can raise the tax rate just as they do now, so there's no guarantee that it'll remain at 23%. The fact is, any arguments I've seen against it are far outweighed by it's advantages, and in fact the biggest arguments against it seem to be from the Hamiltonians who want to keep the IRS instead of getting rid of it.

Sounds like an argument for why we should not return to the gold standard... and a very good one at that.

Thank you.

I know inflation and some of its causes, what kind of events or circumstances trigger Deflation? I would like to know more about ways we could deflate the currency... It would be nice to have American dollars worth so much, other countries would be asking for us to make half-pennies. Really bring some value back to our currency.

The only way I know of for deflation to occur would be for the supply to outstrip demand, and no company is going to do that any more than they have to in order to remain competitive. At the present time, the biggest "deflater" I can forsee would be if Congress would stop restricting drilling, and not only allow, but mandate the immediate construction of new nuclear power plants, and new refineries to bolster our energy supply. In the past 2 years, I've seen costs go up over 20%, with no corresponding raise in wages or salaries, due strictly to energy costs, and the only reason this has happened is because Congress is too busy kissing the butts of the bunny-lovers and tree huggers, and restricting energy production.

The American dollar is a standard for many transactions on the world markets. Strengthening our dollar would strengthen our economic position in the world and give us greater leverage in trade deals, would it not?

Of course it would, but until Congress gets out of the way, and lets the market do what it does best, it's not going to happen. This all gets back to one of our original discussions, Congress hasn't restricted themselves to Article 1 Section VIII, and as a result, look where we are.

[GenSeneca]

Reiterating and Updating OP:
--------------
1. Balanced budget

2. Budgetary Spending and Tax Reform

3. Removal of Omnibus Bills

4. Removal of all earmarks

5. Sunset clauses become standard

6. Military Budget and War Tax

7. All Primary's take place one the same day

8. Provisions of Congressional Reform

9. Inflation and Currency Concerns

Plenty of room if someone would like to add new proposals.
------------------------------------------
6. We were talking about the War budget being unrestricted during times of war but I don't think anyone addressed any kind of limitations or qualifications.

I don't think the GWOT is a good enough reason to have a limitless military budget. I would rather see the limitless budget only occur during times of invasion, to repel the threat.

7. There was some confusion about having primaries on the same day.
I'm pretty sensitive about Amending the Constitution, so what are some alternatives? Federal Government is pretty good at getting states to comply by withholding federal funding until the states submit. What do you think about using federal appropriations as tool for reforming elections?

8. Ok, not very realistic but imagine if our politicians had to wear special interest patches on their clothes like Nascar Drivers do with their sponsors:
http://assets.goodmagazine.com/uploaded/images/masthead_image/198/article_political_nascar_1.jpg
That would certainly make their apparel more interesting.
9/6. I wanted to mention War Bonds. Popular during WW1 and 2, they fell out of favor. What effect do you think this had on our military budget and would re-instating the sale of war bonds be a good or bad idea?
Additionally, what - short of pillaging - can our military do to bring in additional revenue? For example, America's Army was very popular but also very free - there was a CD version that cost $10 but I don't think the Military actually made any money on those sales.

Lets hear what you got!