My second modest proposal in about a month (and this one you will like)

[lawgator1]

I propose that the Congress enact a statute requiring that all legislation be budget neutral, meaning that every program or action they take which will cost money include specifically how it will be paid for, whether it be cuts in some area or taxes raised in some respect. No more legislation without a publicly-disclosed plan to pay for it.

[IPorange]

And what are the repercussions for breaking from the payment plan?

[droski]

Originally Posted by IPorange

And what are the repercussions for breaking from the payment plan?

you become president.

[IPorange]

Sounds like the same system.

[Lexvol]

I like the principle, but it would further entrench career politicians. Seems like the money would move to the states with "tenured" congressional leadership.

[J-P]

It wouldn't work because the same body that enacts the statute would be the one to "revise" it or set it aside at the earliest convenience. Besides, it would not be enough to make it budget neutral because the fed is too large already and spends too much money and taxes away any chance at prosperity in this country. If anything, it should be budget negative in that no new spending can be enacted without reducing spending by double of the new expense.

But again, how would we the people enforce it?

[lumberjack4]

Why would we need this? The current administration ran on this principle. I trust them...

[invalid username]

good try. bad result in my opinion.

[gsvol]

Rots of ruck.

Wassup, you going to join the teabaggers??

[lawgator1]

Constitutional Amendment for it?

[gsvol]

[hohenfelsvol]

Now we need to staff up to meet these new budgetary backup requirements. Yes, lets add more money to the budget he's already blown in his first year in office.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by hohenfelsvol

Now we need to staff up to meet these new budgetary backup requirements. Yes, lets add more money to the budget he's already blown in his first year in office.

Or put into Section I of the bill, "The OMB projects this Act will result in a cost to the General Revenue Funds of xxxxx, revenues for which will be generated by the following mechanisms: surcharge on premiums of .23 percent, cuts in the Medicare program of 12 %," etc, etc.

I know it will never happen. Just saying whichever party is trying to take control always promises to be above board about the finances, and then when push comes to shove never is (except for Clinton).

[hohenfelsvol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Or put into Section I of the bill, "The OMB projects this Act will result in a cost to the General Revenue Funds of xxxxx, revenues for which will be generated by the following mechanisms: surcharge on premiums of .23 percent, cuts in the Medicare program of 12 %," etc, etc.

I know it will never happen. Just saying whichever party is trying to take control always promises to be above board about the finances, and then when push comes to shove never is (except for Clinton).

Requirements cost money. It's just that simple. Add more of them and it costs more money.

[gsvol]

Originally Posted by hohenfelsvol

Now we need to staff up to meet these new budgetary backup requirements. Yes, lets add more money to the budget he's already blown in his first year in office.

LOL at your avatar, don't know if I could get by with that.

Economic Stimulus Funds Went to Climategate Scientist.

"It's outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury," .....
-------------------------------------------

"It's no wonder that Obama's stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren't being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration's position on the global warming theory. This misuse of stimulus money illustrates why tax cuts are a better way to stimulate the economy than letting the government decide where to spend taxpayer dollars. As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds," .........
-----------------------------

The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009.

Mann, the creator of the now infamously discredited Hockey Stick Graph, landed money that came directly from the U.S. Treasury’s economic stimulus package, reveals the Washington free-market think-tank group The National Center For Public Policy Research (NCPPR).

Meanwhile the Obambi administration who the democrats claim in tougher on al-Qaeda than Bush was, diverts US spy satelites and valuble analysits away from hotspots like Afghanistan and Yemen and instead uses those resouces to count Polar bears.