For some reason, the program to balance the budget and reduce the deficit always gets linked to trying to save pet programs. The Left clearly want to save the social programs as they exist right now. The Right is trying to keep government out of the pockets of the rich (supposedly because they are the one ones who create real jobs).
These Left/Right positions have existed for years - they are a part of our political system. They represent the cross-section of the what Americans believe. I suggest we put the issues aside, and look at methods to solve the budget crisis. It seems we must look only at mechanisms, ie. fundamental rules, that require Congress to operate in a fiscally responsible manner.
A Balanced Budget Amendment in the Constitution would have no affect on specific pet programs. The party in power could pass or repeal social programs or cut/raise taxes... so long as the bottom line remains balanced. A BBA is good housekeeping; it doesn't set policy.
Many methods can be used to balance a budget which also do not need to dramatically hold the knife to the throat of any particular ideology. For example, a concentrated effort to make Medicare more efficient would save a lot of money. Redundant tests, overly-conservative doctoring, and spendthrift hospitals was tons of money, not to mention stop outright fraud.
At the same time, our military is severely bloated. Do we really need 10 aircraft carriers and associated support ships constantly roaming the globe? Why are we the only country to have some 6000 bases located overseas? Our defense budget is 10 times what other countries spend.
Our tax code is impossibly complex and has more loopholes than Swiss cheese. I heard Warren Buffet say he thinks the rich should pay more taxes, but who is going to pay taxes when they can get a big mortgage on a house and use it as a tax deduction. I spent my whole life making certain I was taking advantage of every tax loophole. Why? Not because I thought I was paying too much taxes. When if you give me a loophole I will take advantage of it. My mother was a tax deductible expense for 20 years before she died. I did it by buying her an inexpensive condominium, thus paying for more than half her household expenses. When she died I made a huge profit by selling her condo.
Our whole government system of management and operations is hugely inefficient. The CBO has already identified numerous areas where two or more agencies are doing essentially the same thing...
I remember as Vietnam was winding down, the only way anybody could cut unnecessary programs was by Congress simply cutting appropriations. Every agency, including Defense, had to figure out which programs to cut. I was amazed how easily 10% could be cut without pain. The Navy retired a few old, useless ships; the Army had many men who could retire at half pay after 20 years of service. Programs were cut that people never knew even existed.
So a BBA, which requires the budget to be balanced ever year, seems quite reasonable. In the same Amendment we need a mandate that the national debt be eliminated in some reasonable period of time, perhaps 20 years.
No decisions need to be made right now about specific programs or specific tax action. Only a covenant is needed with the American people that our government will forever remain solvent and stay out of debt.
Agree with everything you say. However, we can't have a balance budget next year while we're so far in the hole this year. So, I would be for a BBA let's say by 2015 and ongoing after that, with incremental steps taken until then.
Loopholes are ridiculous, and only serve those who have money (again). I know. . .we have 5 rental properties. . .we LEGALLY end up showing only about $5,000 a year in income from them! Ridiculous!
The military bases over seas are ridiculous too. Not so much that they shouldn't exist at all (although many shouldn't), but they are HUGELY over budgeted! The military based in Aviano, Italy, pays for house rental off based for the smallest grunt at twice the rate Italians pay rent in that same area! I know. . .my brother rents two of his small homes there to American militaries, and has done so for years.
Medicare would be a lot more cost effective PER CAPITA if it was an open option for anyone who chose it. If medicare was open to people of all ages, instead of only to elderly and disabled, the "risk" would be spread over much healthier population (which is now paying huge premiums to be covered by private for profit industry, while they are basically young and healthy).
It is not that medicare is so inefficient, it is that they cover only those who the "smart" for profit insurance doesn't want to even touch, even with a ten foot pole! Guess why?
I don't think the Left wants to save all entitlement/welfare programs as they exist RIGHT NOW. . .Obama has made clear that he is open to cuts in those programs. . .but let's start by cutting CORPORATE welfare, before we start by cutting social welfare, and let's start by cutting entitlements that are duplicate or subsidies to BIG CORPORATE farms, instead of mom and pop farms.
The Right had made that stupid pledge which is nothing but a smoke screen, an attempt to humor the tea party, because the tea party got bigger than what the GOP had intended when it "created it," and now they are trying to find a way to "tame the monster" who is on it's way to destroy it by splitting the votes in the Republican party.
And politics continue. . .willing to bring America down to its knees.
