Green Room

Washington won’t balance the budget. Well, here’s what it could do to reduce the deficit…

posted at 5:34 pm on October 16, 2012 by

On October 5, the Congressional Budget Office’s Director’s Blog reported an official estimate of the 2012 deficit. At $1.1 trillion, it is the fourth year in a row the deficit has surpassed one trillion dollars. Since Washington is unwilling to balance the budget any time soon, it is incumbent upon the grassroots to push Congress to at least take a few steps in that direction. On that note, below is a quick list of some basic things Congress could do to reduce the deficit in the next couple of years that was originally published earlier today on the Tea Party Patriots’ blog.

Obviously, when it comes to deficits, they are primarily a two-factor equation: on the one side, you have revenues, and on the other you have spending. While President Obama does not deserve full blame for all four massive deficits – he was only partially responsible, as President, for the 2009 spending levels, and of course tax revenues were down in 2009, mostly not due to anything he had done – he has certainly done very little to reverse the trend.

Here are some ideas Congress should consider, if it wants any kind of deficit reduction to take place — since it’s obviously not serious about balancing the budget any time soon, despite its necessity:

1. Regarding regulations, stop prevention of necessary energy resource cultivation, including but not limited to nuclear power and various forms of drilling. This would provide employment to the unemployed, increased tax revenue to the federal government for deficit reduction, and help with national security concerns.

2. On spending, consider the following:

a. $25 billion a year is spent on unused federal property.

b. Approximately $17 billion is spent on agricultural subsidies annually.

c. Over $20 billion annually is spent on energy subsidies.

d. $100 billion of taxpayer money is used for corporate welfare annually.

e. Potentially several hundred billion dollars is being wasted – annually – on fraud, waste, abuse, and duplication. While much of this is hard to eliminate, even getting rid of one-fifth of it would be extremely helpful with regards to the budget.

3. On tax reform, proponents of big government are partially correct: the federal government does need more tax revenue. However, there is no need to raise tax rates on the wealthy or anyone else. What could happen is some combination of the following:

a. Cut loopholes and lower rates equivalently.

b. Cut loopholes and put the extra revenue towards deficit reduction.

c. Cut loopholes and put some of the extra money towards deficit reduction, while the rest goes towards lower rates.

Any of the above options would be helpful for economic growth and budget-balancing reasons. Obviously, it would be preferable to cut loopholes and lower rates exclusively, but using increased revenue for deficit reduction is economically sound as well.

For years now, Tea Party activists have called for balancing the budget ASAP and making the tax code more economically and morally fair. While Congress has, by and large, refused to budge on these demands, the above suggestions could be a way for grassroots activists to at least get a good first step in towards eventual control of Washington by true fiscal conservatives. At the very least, it would prevent next year’s deficit from being as ghastly large as the 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 ones were. And that, in and of itself, is at least a partial victory.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Dismantle the Department of Education.

rbj on October 16, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Nope, either fix it fix it or let it self destruct. I am sick and tired of the couple elections worth of fixes.

astonerii on October 16, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Eliminate the Dept of Energy and Dept of Education (and several others) – which have totally FAILED at doing what they were originally created to do.

Eliminate the EPA and let the states handle their own environments. Huge cost reduction while also spurring huge economic growth.

Just for starters…..

dentarthurdent on October 16, 2012 at 8:50 PM

How about eliminating pensions for Congress and the President? Work four or eight years, and get a lifetime pension larger than 80% of the American public? When (especially in Congress) they are getting wealthy from inside information? How much does ex-President Clinton charge for a speaking engagement? How much will President Choom get for his third or fourth “autobiography”?

I realize that the total amount is in the noise, but I think it would be a very good first start — after defunding PBS and Planned Parenthood.

RoadRunner on October 16, 2012 at 10:41 PM

You might as well be talking to a brick wall. President Romney is going to do anything but reign in government. We’re going to have to have a real collapse before anything changes, when these SOBs running government are forced into the realization that they can no longer spend.

rickv404 on October 17, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Since Washington is unwilling to balance the budget any time soon, it is incumbent upon the grassroots to push Congress to at least take a few steps in that direction.

Who cares about a balanced budget? Would you rather have a balanced budget with $10 trillion spending level or an unbalanced budget with a $1 trillion spending level?

It’s silly. Just cut spending.

For years now, Tea Party activists have called for balancing the budget ASAP and making the tax code more economically and morally fair.

Taxation is inherently immoral, because it is the coercive and forceful seizure of property. There is nothing moral nor fair about taxation.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Taxation is inherently immoral, because it is the coercive and forceful seizure of property. There is nothing moral nor fair about taxation.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Taxation is the price of living in a civilized society. Now we could go on all day about how much taxes on who and what are fair…

But if you just wanna whine about paying taxes at all, I suggest you move to a desert island somewhere and see how you like THAT arrangement.

MelonCollie on October 17, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Taxation is the price of living in a civilized society. Now we could go on all day about how much taxes on who and what are fair…

But if you just wanna whine about paying taxes at all, I suggest you move to a desert island somewhere and see how you like THAT arrangement.

MelonCollie on October 17, 2012 at 8:50 AM

There is nothing civilized about using unitiated force against another, and that is what government and taxation are. This is a fact. But how about you move since you’re the one who wants to use force and coercion against people in order to take their property?

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Who cares about a balanced budget? Would you rather have a balanced budget with $10 trillion spending level or an unbalanced budget with a $1 trillion spending level?

It’s silly. Just cut spending.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:25 AM

For once, I agree with you, Dante.

GWB on October 17, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Taxation is inherently immoral, because it is the coercive and forceful seizure of property. There is nothing moral nor fair about taxation.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Of course taxes are moral. When you have large numbers of people who form a government, the cost of that government must be born by the people. There are a limited number of ways to get the money. Simply create the money, ask for donations, or tax the people. Simply put, if Americans do not want to be taxed, it is simply a matter of changing the constitution to change how the government is funded.

Where you are confused is where the government has gone beyond the contract between the people and does more than the contract gives them the power to do so and the government taxes more to pay for it.

On the other hand, your a freaking nut case who thinks the military should be a couple dozen poorly trained and worse equipped volunteers against the entire world. So, I usually take your points which I sometimes agree to a degree with with a pound of salt and discount them appropriately. Not all taxes are immoral. Only taxes that pay for things the Constitution does not authorize are immoral! Since the constitution lays out what specific tasks the government can partake in, all others are immoral power grabs.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Of course taxes are moral.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 9:44 AM

All taxation is immoral. It is the seizure of property through coercion and force. You are the one who is confused, because you have no concept of the nature and properties of government, and no concept of what taxation is.

Do yourself a favor and read Murray Rothbard. Maybe he’ll help clear out some of your cobwebs.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I’ll put it another way for you:

The right of property is an unalienable right. There is no possible way you can claim a right to my property or to a portion of my property. If you believe there is, the on,y way you can take my property from me is through force or through threat of force. That is taxation and government as a whole.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM

I’ll put it another way for you:

The right of property is an unalienable right. There is no possible way you can claim a right to my property or to a portion of my property. If you believe there is, the on,y way you can take my property from me is through force or through threat of force. That is taxation and government as a whole.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM

You live in a nation where people voluntarily gave up some rights in order to have things accomplished that they could not do individually or as smaller groups. Defense of the nation is one of them.

If you do disagree, that is your right, and in order to protect your liberty to not have your wealth confiscated, feel free to get the f^ck out and find a place more to your liking. As it stands, this nation is a legitimate one, founded on a constitution, and things like the courts, the military, the congress, the executive branch are all things for which the people, through that constitution, have agreed to pay for. If you do not agree with that, then you sir are not an American, plain and simple.

If you want to disagree on Social Security taxes, or Medicare taxes, I am right there with you, they are not constitutional as far as I am concerned. When you complain that any tax at all is immoral, then I argue that you can go find yourself a deserted island and create what wealth you can there and hope no pirates come along to take it and your life away from you.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM

When you complain that any tax at all is immoral, then I argue that you can go find yourself a deserted island and create what wealth you can there and hope no pirates come along to take it and your life away from you.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Thread winner.

Want some lotion for that burn, Dante?

MelonCollie on October 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM

When you complain that any tax at all is immoral, then I argue that you can go find yourself a deserted island and create what wealth you can there and hope no pirates come along to take it and your life away from you.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM

By the way, when you go to that island, you had best be going alone. As once you add even one other person into the mix, you will lose some of your rights. And by god, if you do take anyone with you, you had best not be signing any contracts with them that destroy your liberty to act any way you want. You had better not make any agreements to defend them if they come under attack with the counter part being they defend you if you come under attack, another loss of your freedom.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 10:49 AM

You live in a nation where people voluntarily gave up some rights in order to have things accomplished that they could not do individually or as smaller groups. Defense of the nation is one of them.

If you do disagree, that is your right, and in order to protect your liberty to not have your wealth confiscated, feel free to get the f^ck out and find a place more to your liking. As it stands, this nation is a legitimate one, founded on a constitution, and things like the courts, the military, the congress, the executive branch are all things for which the people, through that constitution, have agreed to pay for. If you do not agree with that, then you sir are not an American, plain and simple.

If you want to disagree on Social Security taxes, or Medicare taxes, I am right there with you, they are not constitutional as far as I am concerned. When you complain that any tax at all is immoral, then I argue that you can go find yourself a deserted island and create what wealth you can there and hope no pirates come along to take it and your life away from you.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Well, I can see why you’re voting for Obama. I didn’t voluntarily give up any of my rights. I don’t think you understand the difference between voluntary and force. Since you want to use force against people, how about you get out instead? Your justification for taxation appears to be: a group of people got together and said it’s ok. That doesn’t change the inherent nature of taxation.

What happnes if you don’t pay? An armed agent of the State trespasses on your property, damages your property, seizes you and your property, and incarcerates you. You are then brought before a State court. If you refuse to participate, the State selects a person of its choosing to “represent” you.

You tell me where the morality in that lies.

By the way, when you go to that island, you had best be going alone. As once you add even one other person into the mix, you will lose some of your rights. And by god, if you do take anyone with you, you had best not be signing any contracts with them that destroy your liberty to act any way you want. You had better not make any agreements to defend them if they come under attack with the counter part being they defend you if you come under attack, another loss of your freedom.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 10:49 AM

This is a perfect example of your lack of understanding of voluntary relationships and voluntary agreements.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 4:09 PM

You live in a nation where people voluntarily gave up some rights in order to have things accomplished that they could not do individually or as smaller groups. Defense of the nation is one of them.

If you do disagree, that is your right, and in order to protect your liberty to not have your wealth confiscated, feel free to get the f^ck out and find a place more to your liking. As it stands, this nation is a legitimate one, founded on a constitution, and things like the courts, the military, the congress, the executive branch are all things for which the people, through that constitution, have agreed to pay for. If you do not agree with that, then you sir are not an American, plain and simple.

If you want to disagree on Social Security taxes, or Medicare taxes, I am right there with you, they are not constitutional as far as I am concerned. When you complain that any tax at all is immoral, then I argue that you can go find yourself a deserted island and create what wealth you can there and hope no pirates come along to take it and your life away from you.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Well, I can see why you’re voting for Obama. I didn’t voluntarily give up any of my rights. I don’t think you understand the difference between voluntary and force. Since you want to use force against people, how about you get out instead? Your justification for taxation appears to be: a group of people got together and said it’s ok. That doesn’t change the inherent nature of taxation.

What happnes if you don’t pay? An armed agent of the State trespasses on your property, damages your property, seizes you and your property, and incarcerates you. You are then brought before a State court. If you refuse to participate, the State selects a person of its choosing to “represent” you.

You tell me where the morality in that lies.

So, you do not believe in the Constitution of the United States of America? Is that your argument? Please say it is so, because then I will just simply laugh at you! What a f^cking moronic imbecilic retard you are. You are by far the poster child for libertarian views.

By the way, when you go to that island, you had best be going alone. As once you add even one other person into the mix, you will lose some of your rights. And by god, if you do take anyone with you, you had best not be signing any contracts with them that destroy your liberty to act any way you want. You had better not make any agreements to defend them if they come under attack with the counter part being they defend you if you come under attack, another loss of your freedom.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 10:49 AM

This is a perfect example of your lack of understanding of voluntary relationships and voluntary agreements.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 4:09 PM

The constitution was voted on and ratified by the several states, and every state which joined the union afterwards. It is in and of itself a contract. If you do not want to follow it, get the f^ck out and find your own piece of land to live on where you can be king. DO not like that answer, tough luck a$$hat, because the government is not going away any time soon.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 4:41 PM

So, you do not believe in the Constitution of the United States of America? Is that your argument? Please say it is so, because then I will just simply laugh at you! What a f^cking moronic imbecilic retard you are. You are by far the poster child for libertarian views.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 4:41 PM

The Constitution is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. You have done nothing but fail to address a single one of my points. In fact, you haven’t brought anything to the discussion at all. That’s because you are ignorant in regards to government, taxation, natural rights, force, and voluntary relationships.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM

The Constitution is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. You have done nothing but fail to address a single one of my points. In fact, you haven’t brought anything to the discussion at all. That’s because you are ignorant in regards to government, taxation, natural rights, force, and voluntary relationships.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM

So what’s your solution (for the real world)? Anarchy?
You do understand that’s basically what you’re pushing?

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM

So what’s your solution (for the real world)? Anarchy?
You do understand that’s basically what you’re pushing?

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Yes to both. Well, anarcho-capitalism, to be specific.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Yes to both. Well, anarcho-capitalism, to be specific.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 5:30 PM

Ok. We’ve had this debate before. The problem is, that just doesn’t work in the real world, any more than socialism or communism – nice in theory, but all based on invalid assumptions about the human race.

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 5:35 PM

The Constitution is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. You have done nothing but fail to address a single one of my points. In fact, you haven’t brought anything to the discussion at all. That’s because you are ignorant in regards to government, taxation, natural rights, force, and voluntary relationships.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM

The constitution authorizes the government to perform certain functions. In order to perform those functions, it also allows the government to collect money to pay for them. One of those methods is the power to tax.

Being a member of the society that forms the United States of America under that constitution means that you are under its jurisdiction and its taxation authority.

Do not like it, get out and find an unclaimed piece of the Earth to live on where you are free to do what ever!

Want to know what else. The only thing that lets you live is that government having power to keep other people from freely killing your sorry worthless self.

for the record, here is your point.

Taxation is inherently immoral, because it is the coercive and forceful seizure of property. There is nothing moral nor fair about taxation.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 8:25 AM

Here is the rebuttal…

The Constitution of the United States of America is a contract between the people and the states that make up the United States of America and entered into voluntarily by the people and the states. The Constitution covers all areas for which the United States of America has under its jurisdiction, living within that jurisdiction is a an acknowledgement that you will live up to the citizens’ part of that contract.

DO NO LIKE THE CONTRACT CALLED THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHICH AUTHORIZES TAXES, GET OUT OF THE JURISDICTION.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 5:36 PM

So what’s your solution (for the real world)? Anarchy?
You do understand that’s basically what you’re pushing?

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Yes to both. Well, anarcho-capitalism, to be specific.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 5:30 PM

And the end of the debate.
LOL

OMFGWAML

I really need to keep this. You are a certifiable nut if you believe what you say here.

There is no such thing as what you propose, never has been for any period of time. Any time people leave themselves open to attack and produce any prosperity they always find themselves dead and looted.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Ok. We’ve had this debate before. The problem is, that just doesn’t work in the real world, any more than socialism or communism – nice in theory, but all based on invalid assumptions about the human race.

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Except that it has.

There is no such thing as what you propose, never has been for any period of time. Any time people leave themselves open to attack and produce any prosperity they always find themselves dead and looted.

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Actually, there has been. More than one, in fact. If only the list of oppressive governments were as short. Still, your ramblings regarding the Constitution is nothing but the logical fallacy of begging the question. You have yet to address my point.

Your naive understanding of government just underscores why you will be voting for Obama.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Actually, there has been. More than one, in fact. If only the list of oppressive governments were as short. Still, your ramblings regarding the Constitution is nothing but the logical fallacy of begging the question. You have yet to address my point.

Your naive understanding of government just underscores why you will be voting for Obama.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM

You are a lunatic. Your point has been covered. Our government is of, for and by the people. It covers a certain geographic area, and if you are in that area you CONSENT TO IT, plain and simple. LUNATIC!

you did not even list the short list. LOL

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Except that it has.
Dante on October 17, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Where? Back up your assertion.

It has been and is being tried – but doesn’t work – not if you actually want some kind of civilised society.
See Chicago during prohibition, Chicago inner city now, many inner city areas now. If you want to talk “anarcho-capitalism” – those are the places that show how it works in the real world – gangs battling and killing each other for “turf” and their drug business.

Despite what you keep throwing at astonerii, I would guess you’re the one voting for Obama since he’s more likely to bring about some form of anarchy as a result of his disasterous policies.

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Where? Back up your assertion.

It has been and is being tried – but doesn’t work – not if you actually want some kind of civilised society.
See Chicago during prohibition, Chicago inner city now, many inner city areas now. If you want to talk “anarcho-capitalism” – those are the places that show how it works in the real world – gangs battling and killing each other for “turf” and their drug business.

Despite what you keep throwing at astonerii, I would guess you’re the one voting for Obama since he’s more likely to bring about some form of anarchy as a result of his disasterous policies.

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Your last statement shows you know nothing of anarchy or anarcho-capitalism. It doesn’t mean chaos or disorder; it means without ruler, not without rules. It’s based on voluntary relationships, property rights, the free market, and the non-aggression principle.

Moresenet is probably the best example. Others would include medieval Iceland, some American Indian groups, and the American Frontier West.

You are a lunatic. Your point has been covered. Our government is of, for and by the people. It covers a certain geographic area, and if you are in that area you CONSENT TO IT, plain and simple. LUNATIC!

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 9:06 PM

If you were even slightly informed, then I might give your opinion some respect and weight. My being born here and living here is in no way tacit consent. Because you are ignorant, all you have are logical fallacies and juvenile “if you don’t like it leave” arguments, which all intend to serve the same purpose: to mask the fact that you are ignorant of the subject and are unable to craft an intelligent response to another’s argument and position.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 9:28 PM

If you were even slightly informed, then I might give your opinion some respect and weight. My being born here and living here is in no way tacit consent. Because you are ignorant, all you have are logical fallacies and juvenile “if you don’t like it leave” arguments, which all intend to serve the same purpose: to mask the fact that you are ignorant of the subject and are unable to craft an intelligent response to another’s argument and position.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Your argument is that the rest of the people are not allowed to pool their resources and form a government. Guess what retard, we are allowed to do just that. If you do not agree with us, feel free to overpower all of us, that would be your anarchic aspect. You will not succeed, leaving you only one other alternative to be free as you say. Move!

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Moresenet is probably the best example. Others would include medieval Iceland, some American Indian groups, and the American Frontier West.
Dante on October 17, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Your statements and examples show you’re living in fantasyland. All of the examples you provided were not able to survive for very long. Eventually, all small scale disorganized societies, such as your examples, have fallen to a more organized society with leaders, wants/needs (greed perhaps), and some form of collective government – and therefore more military power.

Your Moresenet was nothing more than a small mine that got accidently created as a sort of separate entity under the shared ownership of 3 countries, and was more or less overlooked for awhile by the governments that theoretically shared ownership and control of it. Where is it now?

And do you really want to base your theory on American Indian tribes or the frontier west? Really? How well did they do over time? You might as well use the fantasy utopian societies of the Na vi (Avatar) or even Star Trek as your target societies.

dentarthurdent on October 17, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Your argument is that the rest of the people are not allowed to pool their resources and form a government. Guess what retard, we are allowed to do just that. If you do not agree with us, feel free to overpower all of us, that would be your anarchic aspect. You will not succeed, leaving you only one other alternative to be free as you say. Move!

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 9:46 PM

That isn’t my argument at all. All you have are logical fallacies and name calling, anything and everything to avoid engaging the argument.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 10:04 PM

That isn’t my argument at all. All you have are logical fallacies and name calling, anything and everything to avoid engaging the argument.

Dante on October 17, 2012 at 10:04 PM

Actually it is your argument.

Your argument is that we cannot have the government we want. That the government we want cannot have jurisdiction over an area where so much as one person does not consent. That people in that jurisdiction who do not want to consent should be allowed to do what they want. If they to murders someone, it is OK, we cannot arrest them because they did not consent to our government.

Sounds pretty much what you are saying. Because you do not consent, but still live in the jurisdiction of our government, you have no duty to comply with our laws.

You know what Indians, your most awesome tribes did to other Indians who did not comply? They kicked them out of their tribe and let them die alone!

Want to know what Moresenet did to people who did not comply? They kicked them out and never let them back in.

You really do not want to know what medieval Icelanders did to those who refused to go along with what the whole tribe decided to do, do you?

LOL, you seriously think those societies did not have rules, regulations and social mores that you were expected to live by? What kind of moron are you?

astonerii on October 17, 2012 at 10:21 PM