A compilation of information and links regarding assorted subjects: politics, religion, science, computers, health, movies, music... essentially whatever I'm reading about, working on or experiencing in life.
Showing posts with label Government reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government reform. Show all posts
[...] The official assumptions assume we will continue to do almost everything the state is doing now, in the same manner it is doing them now. This is not only a recipe for a huge deficit, but it is also a recipe for shortchanging everyone who has a right to expect that their state government will focus on its core responsibilities and do so in a fiscally responsible manner.
As set forth in Facing Reality, we identify a number of ways the state can reform how it performs certain services, how it pays for them, and how it can spin off or end other services to reduce costs and/or improve service. Included are items such as privatizing liquor distribution and sales and the DMV, reducing corrections costs, eliminating a number of costly tax credits and new programs, and targeted reductions in public employee compensation. All together these reforms could save some $2 billion in the upcoming biennium.
In Facing Reality we also propose a reasonable limit on the future growth of state expenditures, and the reduction or elimination of perhaps the most damaging symbol of Oregon’s perceived unfriendliness to business and entrepreneurship: the highest-in-the-nation 11 percent capital gains tax. [...]
Read the whole thing for the details; it's excellent. Now we just have to find a way to force our politicians to face reality.
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? House Republicans can pass all sorts of legislation to reduce the burden of government spending, but they don't control the Senate and they can't override a presidential veto. President Barack Obama, meanwhile, lacks the power to compel Congress to approve Democratic goals, including higher taxes.
This is a recipe for gridlock. And gridlock means bigger government: Democratic proponents of the status quo are in much stronger position to prevail because there are few ways for budget cutters to exert their will.
But there is some hope because of a "must-pass" piece of legislation. The president wants Congress to increase the statutory debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion so that government operations remain unaffected. Republicans oppose this business- as-usual approach and are insisting on real fiscal reforms in exchange for a higher ceiling.
[...]
Quite simply, Toomey's bill would require the federal government to fulfill obligations to bondholders before making any other disbursements.
To the extent that investors actually are worried, Toomey's legislation would remove ambiguity and, to borrow from the title of the bill, make clear that the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government would be preserved.
Toomey's proposal has generated a lot of angst among Beltway insiders because it would change the political dynamics of the budget fight. Politicians love to pontificate about the dangers of debt, but many of them are MIA when it comes to putting real limits on the growth of government spending.
It's much easier to put the budget on auto-pilot and delay tough choices, which is usually what happens with closed-door budget compromises in Washington.
Powerful Weapon If the Toomey legislation is adopted, fiscal reformers will have a powerful weapon at their disposal. Secure in the knowledge that default no longer is a possibility, they can be much tougher in their negotiations with the politicians who favor the status quo. [...]
Skeptics who continue to assert that the economic plight of the United States has been overstated need not look further than the Pentagon to find out just how wrong they are. CNBC has learned that the Pentagon is currently playing out “war games” pertinent to an American economic meltdown.
According to CNBC, “The Pentagon is planning for real economic threats to America.”
CNBC’s Business News analyst Eamon Javers explains:
Ever since the crash of 2008, the Defense Intelligence establishment has really been paying a lot of attention to global markets and how they could serve as a threat to U.S. National security interests. At one upcoming seminar that we’re going to see here next month, they’re going to be taking a look at a lot of the issues … [including] the use of sovereign wealth funds to manipulate markets, currencies; nation state economic collapse, sovereign default, nation state instability; U.S. Allies’ budgets, deficits, national security infrastructures.
Similarly, the Army has launched an operation called “Unified Quest 2011” in which it studies the “implications of ‘large scale economic breakdown’ inside the United States that would force the Army to keep ‘domestic order amid civil unrest.’” The Quest also trains the Army in how to “deal with fragmented global power and drastically lower budgets.”
[...]
However, the 2011 Unified Quest lends truth to assertions that the United States is indeed not witnessing an upward economic recovery, as so many in our federal government have asserted. Soldiers are being trained in evacuation and detainment as a response to rioting, revealing the possibility that the United States military may resort to martial law in order to maintain order.
[...]
Blacklisted News explains that the Pentagon’s war games are just one of many examples that show the direction in which the world is headed. Others include the decentralization of FEMA from a single distribution facility in Washington to 15 regional facilities across the nation. Blacklisted News also claims, “Anecdotal evidence indicates that the U.S. government has been the leading buyer of freeze dried foods for the last couple of years, and private emergency shelter contractors have reported a shortage in equipment and supplies for building personal-sized bunkers.”
The actual video from the CNBC broadcast sounds less conspiratorial:
It's the military's job to plan for various scenarios. They would be remiss in their duties if they didn't. Yet, if they knew a collapse was imminent, they would also be preparing for it. So which is it: precaution or preparation?
The politicians are telling us there is an economic recovery happening, but there is no denying that the military is practicing for a collapse. Not only that, they've been working on this for the past two years:
Follow both links for more information and links. It can be interpreted either way.
OK, so the military is preparing. It's good to be cautious, right? I've posted previously about What a U.S. currency collapse might look like. The Pentagon says they are looking at it as something triggered by terrorist actions. But many say that terrorism may not enter into it; a collapse could also result from fiscal mismanagement by our own government. Either way, the end result would likely look the same.
And if there is an economic collapse and ensuing chaos, we will need the military to maintain law and order, right? But consider this also:
[...] Well what’s wrong with that? A nice partnership between the state and federal governments so they can coordinate things and keep us all safe! We’ve gotten so used to this government speak. We should scream just hearing that statist jargon “partnership between the Federal Govt and state governments”. Our founding fathers did not see it that way. The states were sovereign. They gave certain enumerated powers (Art1. sec8) to the federal government, they delegated certain responsibilities to the federal government, but they did NOT make them partners. We were the united (with a small u as written in the Declaration of Independence) States of America.
This executive order does an end run around state sovereignty, creating 10 regions of the country (in line with the regions FEMA and the UN have established) and essentially erasing state lines in the event of the council taking any action. The president having the power to appoint the governors who are then partnered with him and have charge of “the synchronization and integrations of state and federal military ACTIVITIES in the U.S.” becomes the supreme commander and in charge of state militias and ALL the armed forces (county police, state militia and national guard and federal troops, AND removing any checks and balances thereof)--he in effect becomes a dictator.
The approval of the legislative branch of government isn’t even needed if he wants to squash a domestic insurrection. This makes us the United State (SINGULAR!) of America under the control of 1 person who is advised by the elite he has chosen--clearly no longer a republic, no longer united sovereign states. It should give us pause that Hitler did something similar in 1934 when he transferred the sovereign rights of the states--Germany had states similar to ours-- to the Reich central govt and put the state administrations under the control of the Reich administration.
It certainly looks like the executive branch of the govt is conspiring to get all of the military power and all of the forces under its control.
Let me quote from "Martial Law in America: No Longer Just a Possibility!" by Gary D. Barnett, “This executive order was issued for one purpose only, and that is to build a “legal” partnership between the federal government’s national military force and the domestic police state so that they become one and the same. But in reality, this “partnership” would be controlled by the executive branch of the federal government; this being the most dangerous kind of fascism. Nothing could be more treacherous or more of a threat to liberty than for one man, the president of this now “United State,” to have the power to control and use in domestic matters the entire federal military, the National Guard, the Reserves, the Coast Guard and all state police organizations. This would effectively give the president the power to establish Martial Law over the entire country at any given time of his choosing.” [...]
The article goes on to describe how this directly conflicts with the sovereign rights of states. This was done in February of 2010. Nobody seems to be talking about it.
States already had agreements of cooperation between state and federal powers in disaster and times of strife. I don't see the need for this, other than as a power grab to erode and destroy states rights. George Bush opened the door for this, and now the Democrats have walked in and are exploiting it to the max. But in the end, insofar as we allow it, we're to blame. And it will be up to us to reverse it.
So ... We now have a House solidly under the control of the Republicans. As things stand now the Democrats will have a three seat advantage in the Senate. I'm not upset with this scenario. I've been wondering aloud for weeks what the effect might be on 2012 if the Republicans had both the House and the Senate ... with Obama standing alone as the champion of the Left at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It would be a classic "me vs. them" and would be so easy to spin in to an "Obama as besieged underdog" scenario. If the Republicans had taken the Senate it doesn't mean they would have been able to accomplish anything more than they can right now. Remember, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass important legislation, and there was no way the GOP was going to have those seats. I think the Republicans are better off following their agenda and sending bills to the Senate ... if the Democrats and Obama want to block that legislation - a repeal of ObamaCare, for instance, or an extension of the Bush tax cuts - then the voters will clearly see where the roadblocks are being erected.
[...]
But for the time being, we will now have (as of January) a divided government. This is a government where at least one chamber of Congress is controlled by the other party of the president. For all of the kicking and screaming we are prepared to endure from the Democrats, for the rest of us concerned about our future, divided government can actually be a good thing. The Cato Institute has some insight for us ...
Our federal government may work better (less badly) when at least one chamber of Congress is controlled by a party other than the party of the president. The general reason for this is that each party has the opportunity to block the most divisive measures proposed by the other party. Other conditions, of course, also affect political outcomes, but the following types of evidence for this hypothesis are too important to ignore:
The rate of growth of real (inflation-adjusted) federal spending is usually lower with divided government.
The only two long periods of fiscal restraint were the Eisenhower administration and the Clinton administration, during both of which the opposition party controlled Congress.
The probability that a major reform will last is usually higher with a divided government because the necessity of bipartisan support is more likely to protect the reform against a subsequent change in the majority party.
The fact is, folks, is that we are headed into a crucial time in this country. We are at a crossroads. Yesterday, all we were doing was picking the people who would lead us down these roads. Now the journey begins. OK .. enough of the sappy metaphors. But do you understand what these next two years represent? We need fundamental change in this country - to our tax code, to Social Security, to Medicare and Medicaid, to deficit reduction - but I am not talking about the "fundamental" change that Barack Obama desires. Barack Obama, with the Democrats he has left, would prefer for our country to head down a path which punishes wealth, redistributes wealth, expands entitlements and expands government. The fundamental change that we now seek is not just stopping the Obama agenda from "moving forward" but reforming our nation in such a way that Americans can once again prosper.
So it's all for the good. The Democrats have been left with control of the Senate. If they block changes from Congress, they will have to accept full responsibility for it. They have been given enough rope to hang themselves. Of course, they don't HAVE to hang themselves. They could try working with Republicans. But I don't have a lot of faith that would happen. Not if they follow the president's lead:
I could be wrong about that; time will tell. It's just that, Obama so far has shown a deplorable unwillingness to work in a bipartisan manner. He seems too ideologically rigid, too inflexible. Can he change? I doubt it, but the ball is in his court now. It's up to him, and his party, to make the most of it. Or not.
[...] Obama said, "My name may not be on the ballot, but our agenda for moving forward is on the ballot, and I need everybody to turn out." Don't ya just love that phrase .. "our agenda of moving forward." Moving forward to what? If you're rushing toward the end of the pier, maybe changing your direction would be worth some consideration. Voters seem to think so.
Again ... moving forward to what?
Moving forward to unprecedented federal debt. From the time the gavel fell opening the first session of the first congress of the United States .. way back yonder in the late 1780s, until 1990 --- that's about 210 years - our country amassed $3 trillion in debt. Barack Obama amassed $3 trillion in additional debt in the first 17 months of his presidency. Moving forward.
When Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House on January 4, 2007 she announced that there would be no more deficit spending. None. Nada. Nunca. Since that time she has presided over a House of Representatives that has increased our deficit spending by another $5 trillion dollars. Moving forward.
When ObamaCare was passed The Community Organizer told us that we would be able to keep our insurance if we liked it. We can't. He told us it would cut the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office now says it won't. He told us it would cost less than one trillion dollars. It will cost more.
It takes 150,000 new jobs every single month in our country just to keep up with the rate of population growth. Obama hasn't seen that figure one single time since he was sworn in. Moving forward.
Out of every dollar our country spends today over 40 cents is borrowed. Moving forward.
America has been in recessions before. Never, though, has American seen a recession end with so few new private sector and so many government jobs being created. Moving forward.
At the rate that Obama is moving our country, we are moving right into bankruptcy. We are moving right into a period of unprecedented joblessness and growth of the moocher class. Moving forward implies becoming a better version of oneself. Obama is not taking our country in a direction of self idealization but off the cliff of self destruction.
Remember all the promises of bipartisanship? How has that worked out over the past two years? What actually happened? A look at the facts:
The answer: Probably the same one we've already seen. The same president that treated bipartisanship as nothing but smoke and mirrors. While holding a few meetings here and there, even a summit on healthcare, Republicans have been blocked from virtually everything the Democrats have done over the last two years. The great and wonderful stimulus package was crafted without a single Republican in the room. In fact, House Democrats shut Republicans out of offering floor amendments to all spending legislation. The recent small business package? Republicans were shut out of offering any amendments. Healthcare? Same exact thing. The Democrats, including Barack Obama, cannot claim bipartisanship and then completely shut out the other side. How many times did Obama react to an effort from Republicans to present ideas by saying "Hey ... I won!" Now with the Republicans coming into their own and gaining power in Congress, it will be interesting to see what Obama does when he doesn't have Nancy Pelosi and maybe even Harry Reid there as his first line of defense.
The Republicans have certainly played their own part in reckless spending. I think it's a big reason they lost in 2008, but the current Democrat administration have continued that policy with a vengeance. So the Republicans stand to make gains again, but it had better be different this time:
At least the Republicans seem to be embracing the fact that people are not going to the polls because they are in love with Republicans. That's a good thing. Republicans are realizing that they have a lot of work to do in order to get our country back on track and prove to those voters why they made the right decision on November 2nd.
On the night of the elections, John Boehner has made it clear that he does not consider November 2nd a time to party. He wants America to see that the Republicans are serious about tackling the problems we face. NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain says, "... even if voters remove Democrats from power, you don't celebrate at a time when one in 10 Americans are out of work and our children's future is threatened by mountains of debt."
They are right. Let's hope that they maintain this attitude for the next two years. And beyond. Things have this nasty little tendency to change when they get to Washington, pick out their drapes, their fresh flowers for their Congressional offices, and sink into the chair of power.
This time, the people will hold their feet to the fire.
Government will never be perfect. The founder's called it "A necessary evil" for a reason. The best way to limit government's potential for evil, is to limit the power of government itself. At the very least, those who are drunk with government power are overdue for a restraining order.
[...] Conservatives tend to be suspicious of reform and distrustful of the impulse to improve, seeing in both perennial threats to freedom. This is exacerbated by the common tendency, on the right and the left, to equate reform and improvement with the progressive aspiration to remake society. Conservatives warn—with a good deal of dismal political history on their side—that owing to ineradicable human arrogance, ignorance and error, big plans to centrally regulate human affairs are bound to go awry.
But that's no excuse to conflate reform, which is often necessary to advance the cause of political liberty, with the progressive interpretation of it. Indeed, conservative reform will very often involve devising policies to limit government in the face of relentless progressive pressure to expand its reach and responsibilities.
Conservative reform is particularly necessary today. Revolutions in telecommunications and transportation continue to transform business, the family and the environment. The threat of transnational terrorists employing biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber weapons demands greater resourcefulness and agility at all levels of government, as well as greater cooperation among federal, state and municipal officials. And the vast expansion of the federal government undertaken by President Barack Obama and the Democrats has focused the electorate on government's cost and role in a way not seen since Ronald Reagan ran for president.
[...]
Like Burke, contemporary conservatives should take their bearings from the principle of freedom and the conditions that sustain it. The question to ask in every case is whether current arrangements or proposals for alternative ones are more likely to promote individual responsibility, self-reliance and opportunity. The answers should recognize that a federal system favorable to local self-government, respectful of religion and supportive of the family is a time-tested way of cultivating individuals capable of conserving free institutions and taking advantage of the opportunities freedom affords.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan are among those officeholders in the process of recovering reform as a conservative virtue. In November, Meg Whitman, the new Republican nominee in California, and Brian Sandoval, the new Republican nominee for governor in Nevada, stand a good chance to join their ranks.
Today's conservative reformers appreciate that within its limited sphere government should be excellent. Promoting individual responsibility, self-reliance and opportunity requires targeted action, beginning with health-care reform that really controls costs by eliminating barriers on insurance companies operating across state lines and limiting malpractice damages; public-sector reform that reins in unions by reducing benefits and expanding accountability; and education reform that through school-choice programs gives parents, particularly in low income and minority communities, greater control over their children's education. [...]
Freedom is the answer. Government has it's place, when it's put IN it's place: supporting OUR freedom. Reform begins at home, within our own party. The article points out where Republicans went wrong as well. We have to reform our own house first, to regain the confidence of the electorate, not just Republicans, but the majority of the electorate. Only then will we be in a position to advance greater reform, to bring back our Constitutional government, in support of our freedom and liberty.
