Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Oct 29, 2005.
I received this yesterday from my Congressman, Mike Ross:
Earlier this year, I joined the Blue Dog Coalition in offering a ‘12-Step Plan’ that would cure our nation’s addiction to deficit spending. The ‘12-Step Plan’ requires that all federal agencies pass clean audits, requires a balanced budget, establishes ‘pay-as-you-go’ standards, and sets aside a rainy day fund to be used in the event of a natural disaster. Our budget plan has received tremendous praise from many non-partisan watchdog groups across the country, and I hope this focus will eventually have an impact on the way the majority in Congress chooses to address our nation's budget needs.
1. Require a balanced budget.
Adopt a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget every year except in times of war or national emergency.
Require three-fifths vote of both the House and Senate to increase the debt limit or to waive the balanced budget requirement.
A Budget Amendment protects Social Security from benefit cuts and forbids increases in Social Security payroll taxes in order to balance the budget.
2. Don’t let Congress buy on credit.
Irresponsible spending has caused the budget deficit to soar to a record $413 billion in 2004.
Restore PAYGO (pay-as-you-go).
3. Put a lid on spending.
From 2001 to 2003, total government spending soared by 16 percent.
Blue Dogs propose holding the line on discretionary spending for the next three fiscal years at 2.1%--the percentage increase proposed this year in the President’s fiscal 2006 budget.
4. Require agencies to put their fiscal houses in order.
GAO: 16 of 23 major federal agencies can’t issue a simple audit of their books. The federal government can’t account for $24.5 billion it spent in 2003.
Blue Dogs propose a budget freeze for any federal agency that can’t properly balance its books.
5. Make Congress tell taxpayers how much they’re spending.
Any bill calling for more than $50 million in new spending must be put to a roll call vote.
6. Set aside a rainy-day fund.
7. Don’t hide votes to raise the debt limit.
Current House rules allow for automatic increases in the debt limit if Congress passes a budget resolution that increases the public debt.
Blue Dogs propose to change the current rules so that every increase in the public debt limit must be subject to a roll call vote.
8. Justify spending for pet projects.
9. Ensure that Congress reads the bills it’s voting on.
Recently some of the largest spending bills in American history have been voted on after only a few hours of consideration. Example: Medicare Bill.
Blue Dogs propose that members of Congress should be given a minimum of three days to have the final text of legislation made available to them before there is a vote.
10. Require honest cost estimates for every bill that Congress votes on.
11. Make sure new bills fit the budget.
Propose that the Budget Committee strengthen its oversight role by preparing budget compliance statements for every bill that is reported out of committee for consideration by the full Congress.
12. Make Congress do a better job of keeping tabs on government programs.
Propose that each committee be required to submit reports at least twice a year, available to the public, that provide an update on how each committee is fulfilling its oversight duties.
Do not forget:
13: TERM LIMITS - max of 3 consective terms
ie after sitting out a term you could
14: No retirement pay for elected officials
15: Single subject bills ie no more of puting in a pork barrel project for Kansas when the bill is for US Navy battleship funding. (hmm then again, depends on how many battleships are homeported in Kansas)
16: Institue the Electronic Tax Plan.
I am not sure if that is the actual title, but the plan call for all electronic transactions to tax (@ the Federal level) at a rate of .03%. That would be thirty cents per $100! Every thing would be taxed, no one (including churches) would be exempt.
If someone has a link for this tax plan, I would appreciate it.
Some might say that if this tax plan goes thur, we are that much closer to the tribulation. Maybe so.
Come quickly Lord Jesus
Here you go mate:
If the numbers they throw around are right (Australian figures) it does sound possible.
So, does anybody like the ideal of this debit tax?:thumbs:
What's not to like? A tax on folks withdrawing their own money...woo hoo. Only thing better would be to stick a chip in 'em and then tax 'em for each breath they take :thumbs:
The advantage of this tax is that everyone pays, no execptions. If the tax is only .03 % than you are talking about 30 cents per 100 dollars.
Of course this would REPLACE the current income and all other federal taxes:thumbs:
Only way to get a change is another shooting revolution. Why?
1. Half the economy is under the table and half the people like it that way.
2. The AARP & the NEA can swing any election.
3. The retired people always vote and the young people seldom vote.
On behalf of Pete, I am bumping this. Would like to get some more comments on the E-Tax
.03% of $100 would be 3 cents. That's not a tax, it's almost nothing.
I understand that a flat tax would require about 35% taxation. That's $35 for every $100 dollars spent, and would require a nightmare of exceptions, credits, etc. for the poor. It would otherwise shift a huge tax burden from the wealthy to the poor.
Not getting deep into this except to say one thing. We already have term limits in the United States, for elected officials. Last time I checked, a Representative had to be elected every two years; Senators every six years; and Presidents and Vice-Presidents every four years. I was not aware that this had ever been suspended, or bypassed. State officials, in KY stand for election also at 2, 4, and/or 6 year intervals as well. In KY, even judges must be elected. And even being elected (even overwhelmingly) is no 100% sure sign that one will be around 'til the end of a term, pace the Idaho Senator that just announced he is resigning his Senate seat. I personally, am not in favor of this "movement" in favor of "term limits", apart from a Constitutional amendment, at the state and/or national level.
If "We, the people" are dumb (or uncaring) enough to elect the same individuals over and over again, when those we elect are not doing the job, properly, then "We, the people" deserve exactly what we get.
Not a single individual has ever sat for even one minute in either house of the US Congress or as President or Vice-President, or in the Commonwealth of KY in its General Assembly, Governor's office or as a judge, who was not there in accordance with the provisions of the US adn/or KY Constitutions.
Why do so many seem to want to bypass the provisions of the Constitutions and attempt to "legislatively impose" some other standards [which BTW, will not or (at least should not), pass judicial muster, IMO]?
If we want to elect an individual who promises to not run for more than a set number of terms, fine. If he or she should run for more than what they said they would, and we choose to elect a "known liar", based on his or her own pronouncements, why should we be "bailed out" from having to vote the individual out of office?
There are some individuals who have served in the Congress (or the White house) who in fact, have made the committment to not seek more than a certain number of terms. And a handful of those actually had enough integrity to do what they said they would.
Like them or not (and I personally don't care, for the purposes of this post, nor will I offer my own opinion of any), I believe that both ex-Senator Fred Thompson of TN, held this position when he was first elected (and did not run for a third term, there), as well as current Vice-President Richard Cheney, who said when running for the office of VP, that he held no further political aspirations. That small bit of candor is something that I respect, even if I can or could not stand one other thing about either individual.
Once again, I'll offer the old adage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
The system ain't broke!
As to "Whether or not the politicos and 'We, the people' are broke?" ?? -
That is an entirely different question!
Technically, you are correct, but about 90 % of congressman are re-elected. The problem is seniority. Once a man has 3 or 4 terms under his belt, he gets the cushy committee assignments. With that, he can bring lots of pork back home.
Thus the reason, I want term limits.