Democrats Weigh Bipartisan Commission on the Deficit

Okay. The American people are not qualified to tell the federal government how to manage its money. We do not have the perspective or the ideological restraint to tell it how to manage it's money. The government deals in quantities of money that only some of the wealthiest business leaders can begin to grasp. Is that money well spent? Is it wasted? We have no clue. Few of us grasp what a billion really can buy in material goods... let alone a hundred billion... or a trillion. I'm pretty sure you could buy every casino and home in Nevada for a trillion... but then again I really don't know.

This is part of the problem. We're told by media ideologues that the government is wasting money, but none of us have a grasp of what the government actually spends. Only a handful of economic and business experts can realize the full scope. But we're told that it's wasteful and that it's bad and so we react in the most simplistic and ineffective method possible: half of us scream for less taxes and half of us scream for getting more for our money. And then we promptly start screaming at each other.

That is why I am skeptical of this bipartisan panel. I'm also interested in what it finds. Saying the government wastes money is a truism, but can it actually find something that won't be immediately fixed by political leaders, distorted by media hyperbole, and misunderstood by a public that can not grasp just what it is the government does?

Thoughts or should we just proceed to flaming?

Gee, where were you when Bush started spending for the Iraqi war??? Where were you when Mitch McConnell gave all OUR money to the Drug Companies, and raised $25 million for the GOP as a "Perk" for doing business??? Wasn't it Bush that took a projected $5 trillion surplus and in 8 short years turned it into a $10 trillion debt??? WHERE WERE YOU THEN??????

Voting for Gore and Kerry. You?

Somber, my first problem with your comment is you referring to the money as belonging to the government. It's our money. We earned it and gave it to the government in taxes to be spent responsibly and with accountability for the benefit of all Americans. It's not their money.

Secondly, we are the only people who should be deciding where and how that money is spent. We elect officials to represent us in decisions about how the money should be spent and we have the responsibility to contact them regularly to let them know how we feel about different bills, programs, and the ever-increasing deficit.

I think this is one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. In general, conservatives don't feel that this is beyond our comprehension and we should just let the president and congress take care of it for us. Yes, the numbers are big, but waste is waste and every American has the right to have an opinion on where they want their hard-earned money spent. Government doesn't always listen to us and that's why there are elections. It seems to me that both parties have been listening less and less and spending more and more, with a great deal of that money going to pockets that will help their party or their re-election instead of helping the average American. I think most Americans are intelligent enough to realize that and object and that's what we are seeing happen.

No matter what your ideaology is, you should be alarmed at the rising deficit, the devaluation of the dollar, and the monetizing of our debt. Unless you want to have to take a wheelbarrow full of money to the store to buy a loaf of bread, something has to change. It's that serious.

I don't know if this panel will do anything or if it's more PR to ward off the majority who are concerned, but it's worth considering. Hopefully, it's not too late already.

Couldn't be said any better. If these people, led by Pelosi and her co-hort are allowed to do this to the American people, there will most likely be a revolt by the very folks who put them in office. This is one time we should all "just say no"!!

I think it can be summed up this way. The Democrats, realizing that the expiration date on blaming the deficit on the Bush Administration, don't want to be saddled solely with the blame for increasing it even further as they attempt to implement one expensive social program after another. The "reluctance" on the part of the White House is a reluctance to actually give Republicans any input into the process, or to go on record as part of an advisory commission as recommending against some of the spending. So while they'd like the "share the wealth" as it relates to responsibility for the ballooning deficit, they don't want to give the opposition any ammunition as opponents should the massive spending plans end up all for naught.

The Democrats and the Republicans in Congress are spending this country into oblivion. The government spending spree must end now.

All of your points are valid.
For years the need to import fuel oil has resulted in huge transfer of American wealth abroad. Now irresponsible accumulation of debt to China and other countries is serving to accelerate the loss of domestic wealth.
Any logical person will realize that government can't continue to spend trillions of dollars more than it takes in without devastating effect on the American way of life. I am far from an advocate of tax increases, but the reckless spending of our Congress already makes them unavoidable.
We taxpayers are going to suffer from what has already been done, but if we voice our concern, our economy and personal security will continue their accelerating downhill path.
Ultra-liberal government has clearly demonstrated its failures. American have a right to demand change, but this time change for the better.

Let's parse this.

1. God did not give me my intelligence. My intelligence is the result of the hard work of dozens of teachers, educators, experiences, and hard work. It is not perfect, nor would I deem it superior, but it is what I have to work with.

2. I fully recognize that no entity, government or otherwise, can spend indefinitely. However, I also recognize that our government has been in debt continuously since before the United States was a country and that what we get for our debt is dependent upon our effort to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of the money spent.

3. Payment for the health care plan focuses mostly on savings rather than taxation or deficit spending. By forcing health insurers to cover everyone, people will get preventative treatment for illnesses rather than wait till care becomes critical. It's much cheaper for everyone if a person is treated for bronchitis before it turns into hospitalizing pneumonia. It likewise requires young people who otherwise buck the system to pay into it, thus covering health insurers and forcing them to lower their costs. Finally, a public option would set a price cap for insurance policies that are not luxurious with benefits.

4. Last I checked we haven't undergone 16% inflation. Our dollar may have lost 16% of its value in exchanges with other currency but thus far our economy is holding together. I acknowldge, as per point 2, that no government can spend forever nor print forever but as of this moment see no reason to panic. If you disagree, cite a third party source.

5. What is happening in California is a myopic analogy. California real estate market was hit far harder than the rest of the country. Likewise it is an entitlement state that used the housing market as an engine to fund those entitlements. The state then cut taxes to shift revenues. California, like millions of Americans and the country in general, never seemed to question what would happen when the party stopped. When it did, both the credit crisis and partisan disagreements crippled the state. Republicans wanted to cut entitlements. Democrats wanted to return revenues to tax bases. Neither was willing to compromise till the mess was a full blown catastrophe.

6. One final point in return to you, good sir. One day America will be gone, just as many great countries before us have been gone. If you are afraid of that inevitability then you will always be reactionary to anything you consider a threat. Will it be tomorrow? I doubt it. Ten years? I doubt it. But eventually it will no longer exist. I don't want it to end anymore than you do, but I recognize that it will. I also recognize that it doesn't mean the ending of the world or even people. The British Empire is more than a century passed and yet the British endure. The Nazi regime is a distasteful note in history and yet Germans exist. One day America too will be gone, perhaps replaced by something worse or maybe replaced by something better. That remains to be seen, but one thing I know is that fear of the ending of something is a poor motivator for deciding change and for understanding.

Somber, let's just focus on number three in your comment. This bill does depend on heavy taxation, not just savings. It depends on taxing the highest earners, taxing the best health insurance plans, taxing employers, taxing insurance companies, taxing those who make medical devices, and I'm sure that's not even the complete list. The CBO has admitted that they can't even score this bill accurately because they have no idea what costs are going to be. When you let people wait to sign up for insurance until they are seriously ill without paying into the system for years to build up the pool of money, everyone who is paying premiums will have to pay more. The small penalty for not buying insurance isn't going to cover the expense of all the pre-existing conditions that will need to be covered. Someone has to pay for those and it will mean higher taxes and higher premiums for the rest of us.

Imagine any other insurance company being forced to do business this way. Imagine that you didn't have to buy car insurance or homeowners insurance until you totaled your car or a tornado destroyed your house and then you could just walk into their office and demand that they buy you a new car or pay for a new house. No business could survive that. The very concept of insurance is to be paying into it regularly in case you need it someday. If everyone can just show up when they need it without paying into it, it's no longer insurance, it's entitlement, and it's no longer a business, but a government program. They need to take their time and come up with a way that the unfortunate people with pre-existing conditions can be covered without bankrupting the insurance companies or raising everyone else's premiums skyhigh. So far they haven't done that.

It's more important to do this right than to do this fast. The benefits won't even take effect for several years and our whole economy will be affected, not to mention our personal healthcare. They need to slow down and do this step by step, finding a solution that covers those who need coverage without bankrupting the country or ruining the coverage that the rest of us already have.

Somber
1:05PM Nov 1st 2009

You wrote that, 'One day America will be gone, just as many great countries before us have been gone."

Today no one describes America as an impoverished country. But 38 more months under the Obama regime, with no checks or balances from the Democratic controlled Congress may well qualify us for that designation.

You are correct in stating that, "many great countries before us have been gone." What destroyed ancient Greece, Rome and other great powers was corruption, incompetent leadership and abandonment of the principles which made them strong. Today we are experiencing those same destructive trends, but it still isn't too late to return to the concepts of freedom, individual responsibility and willingness to work which America has embraced since its foundation.

I am worried, but I haven't yet given up on America.

Unfortunately the quid pro quo of politics is how business gets done.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position seems to be that the government represents the people and should not represent the interests of lobbyists and political action committees? If so, I agree with you. However, there is a dimension you have yet to consider: elections. In order for a politician to get elected they have to advertise. This is a truism in political science: the more exposure the better one's chances of getting elected. But this advertising does not pay for itself. It can take millions, even hundreds of millions for presidential elections, to pay for advertising. Where does the money come from?

Sometimes, rarely, it's private. We have billionaire politicians and even Obama was a millionaire when he ran. But the founders did not want a plutocracy where only the wealthy could be eligible to hold office. This is why Congress and the presidency have a salary at all; so that someone could afford to be in politics and keep their homes.

The second source is donations. This comes with a barb, however. If I am a billionaire and I fund a congressman... who does that congressman represent? His constituents or myself? So we put limits on donations; but then what if I can get two thousand people to donate to their election? Once again the question arises.

Then you mentioned lobbyists and special interests. They don't even ask the question. Their money is for sale for the express purpose of representing their needs. Some lobbies are non-profit. Others are blatantly for profit. But what choice does a congressman have? If he doesn't accept the money then there's a chance than his opponent will. Many lobbies offer money to all candidates to create obligations that subtract from the public's representation.

So. All of this is somewhat worthless though. If you want to get politicians to represent the people then you'll have to remove the money incentive, which means either regulating the television advertising or else to have elections wholly funded by the taxpayers. Neither one is an easy proposition. For a presidential example you might require that by... say... Memorial day... every party candidate has to have a minimum of 20 million registered signatures to be an eligible presidential candidate. After Memorial day, any media outlet registered with the FCC has to provide 200 30 second segments to each candidate. That's 6000 seconds on Fox, 6000 seconds on CNN, 6000 seconds on CBS. The network can schedule them whenever in their programing they like, BUT they have to show all the presidential commercials back to back. This prevents Fox from scheduling the democratic commercials at 3 AM and CBS from doing the same for republican candidates. These are the only political commercials that can be aired to prevent third party smear campaigns. An exception may be made for third party commercials that ENDORSE a candidate.

It's not perfect and it may be unconstitutional but it would put a stake through the heart of what I see as the reason for misplaced loyalties with our politicians.

" They also created $38 trillion in off book Medicare Debt and $17 Trillion in Off Book Social Security Debt "

Just imagine how much more on and off book debt will be added over the next ten years by the Democrats' health care deform plan. Obama's latest "health care" move was to open our borders to anyone who tested positive for HIV. Next he may invite foreign countries to send us all their sick and unemployed to share in his "free" medical care program. Then he can again apologize for America if we don't cure all their ailments.

Something has to be done and soon to prevent financial suicide. A hint of government sanity would help.

Rather than addressing existing deficits by eliminating fraud, opening up interstate competition for private insurers, introducing tort reform, spending stimulus funds to create jobs and encouraging citizens to earn their own livings, the administration continues to focus on power grabs and redistribution of whatever wealth remains in our pockets.