PDA

View Full Version : DIY Constitutional Government / Budget




tangent4ronpaul
08-17-2011, 09:45 AM
We've done a number of these things before, but it's always been top down verses bottom up. In other words, “what would you cut from government?”. The question here is: Start with the Constitution, and build a government from scratch. How would you do it? Granted, using the existing framework. Who gets to stay? And of those that get to stay, how would you change them?

Defense is a core function of government so is a keep. Likewise treasury, commerce, etc. If it's not specifically listed in the Constitution as a legitimate power of the federal government – it can't be on the list. Lets see how short a list we can come up with.

OK, lets talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I'm going to use rounded numbers here, but this is what we have to deal with as a baseline. In 2010, the federal government spent 3.5T but only took in 2.5T so added 1T to the debt. The big 4 we are stuck with:
700B (20%) Defense
700B (20%) Social Security
800B (23%) Medicare and Medicaid
200B (6%) Interest on the debt
2.4T (69%) Total

The first thing I'd like to do is freeze spending at a hard 3.5T a year. Of this, 500B must be used to pay off the debt every year. That means the country could pay off the 14.5T and would be debt free in about 30 years. That leaves a 3T budget and assumes the government can actually bring in 3.5T a year.

Social security we can't do much about. People paid into it, Congress spent the money. We owe them. It can be phased out with tryirement savings accounts and the problem (after getting worse in the short term) is self correcting as baby boomers die out and fewer people are in the program.

Medicare and Medicaid we can do quite a bit about. They are systemic of the problems of the entire healthcare system and a bubble of their own that will burst in about 2020 if not addressed now. Solutions include growing doctors, nurses/NP's and PA's (there is a shortage), Getting the federal government out of the business of regulating health care/abolishing HHS and the FDA and preventing insurance companies from manipulating high rates for the uninsured through contracts. Changing patent law so that a company that develops a new drug gets gets a monopoly on it's manufacture (or royalties) for say 100 years instead of the current short duration in exchange for having to make it immediately generic would solve many of the problems in that industry. People used to pay for health care out of pocket because it was affordable. We can make it affordable again if we fix the system. I think we could get this down to about 100B to 200B a year within 2-3 years.

Defense could also be tapered down to 100B to 200B a year within 2-3 years. Specifics:
Bases: Overseas – close all but 6-12 lightly staffed ones to maintain pre positioned war supplies, quick response teams for embassy rescue, etc. as well as for training in cultural understanding and linguistics. Additionally, maintain contracts/agreements with perhaps 40 more for use in case of war, but do not staff these. Domestically – keep all training facilities open but close all housing active duty troops unless wanted by the state guard/reserve with a few exceptions.
Equipment: Mothball but maintain/upgrade (ie: new radar or EW) all of it. For what's left active, rotate 3-4 crews through it on a ongoing basis. The majority of active equipment should be deployed to a skeleton active duty force tasked with domestic defense, quick response and training with most sent to guard/reserve units and national training units. ALL the boomers should be kept and sailing the world, SAC (though I believe they recently changed their name) should be kept active silo's/B-52's, the stealths. Keep 2 carrier battle groups active – one right off the east and another off the west coast both for defense and training. Redeploy a lot of fighters to Air Guard units, etc.
Personnel: First FIRE all the contractors and place a moratorium on their being hired again. In every war (and now even in “peace time”) – they have raped the taxpayer and driven up costs. For your average enlisted personnel - First and foremost we need to move the vast majority of them into the reserves and ideally the guard. Dumping them all at once would be devastating to the unemployment situation. Let them serve out their service and trickle into the civi community slowly. OK – there are a couple of MOS's that could really help the country and offering others to transfer into those would be good!: Medical and Engineer. As I said before, we need to grow medical personnel so lets let service members serve out their terms getting trained in medical fields and taking over the patient load for medicaid patients that the private sector doesn't want to deal with because they loose money. As to engineers – let them serve out their enlistments fixing roads and bridges in THIS country!
Anyway, that's how I'd do it. Adopt Switzerland’s foreign policy, leave the military to the states (guard/reserve units), except for training and a small active duty defense force and keep all the equipment and have people trained on it so in case we are attacked or Congress declares war, we could spin up quickly and hit the ground running. Some units should be kept active – special forces, rangers, etc. but most should transfer to guard units. Leave the coast guard alone.

OK, that leaves 2 remaining parts:
412B (12%) Other mandatory spending – no idea what this is – anyone?
660B (19%) Discretionary

I'm guessing a lot of the other mandatory spending isn't that mandatory and Discretionary spending is going to be mostly unconstitutional so able to be gutted. So there is basically 1T of potential cuts here.

So back to the original question. Start with nothing and build from nothing a constitutional government. Off the top of my head:

Executive branch – but most of what's under this is unconstitutional.
Legislative branch – Congress
Judicial branch – the court system
State Department
Treasury
The patent office
US Postal service
Commerce Department is technically constitutional but should really be abolished
Defense

What am I missing? Surely something?

-t

stuntman stoll
08-17-2011, 11:23 AM
Some good thinking in there but I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. You start off talking about starting from scratch, but then you talk about changing from the existing. Which is it?

If you're talking about starting from scratch (which would be the fastest way to take the harsh medicine and return to freedom and prosperity) then: The Washington government should be shut down and all federal bureaucrats and politicians should be thrown onto the street (put the new capitol in Kansas). Participation in the US should be voluntary; states can come and go. The federal debt should be null and void being that the government responsible for is was illegitimate based on it being completely unconstitutional. Go back to the original constitution with the bill of rights (and no, slavery will not make a comeback; kidnapping is illegal everywhere). Actually follow article 1 section 8 (ie. the fed government would mainly only keep trade open between the states, handle disputes with other countries, facilitate trade with other countries, and issue gold or silver money [they would have the power to own/control the post office and post roads but it doesn't say "shall" so they probably shouldn't])

If you're talking about changing the existing, then the things that would make the biggest change would be: Disband the army (keep some of the navy and airforce [focus on defence ie. sniper malitias, anti missle technology, etc.). End the fed (let the market set interest rates). Keep M1 fiat money supply constant. Allow competing currency. Over the next 20 years raise the retirement age by 10 years (faze out medicare/aid and social security in the long run). Transfer ownership of most federal departments to the states so that states would only fund and be subject to the federal department that they chose to be part of. Get rid of the 16th and 17th amendments.

tangent4ronpaul
08-17-2011, 11:34 AM
Some good thinking in there but I'm not quite sure where you're coming from. You start off talking about starting from scratch, but then you talk about changing from the existing. Which is it?


I should have split it into 2 posts. Might still, if this thread doesn't take off.

The basic idea was build the government from the ground up - what's constitutional as opposed to what parts of the government should we get rid of which is the usual thread on this topic. Then I considered the financial mess we are in and what commitments we had to honor and that kind of took over the article.

I probably should split it.

thanks for your thoughtful reply!

-t

Zippyjuan
08-17-2011, 11:35 AM
OK, lets talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I'm going to use rounded numbers here, but this is what we have to deal with as a baseline. In 2010, the federal government spent 3.5T but only took in 2.5T so added 1T to the debt. The big 4 we are stuck with:
700B (20%) Defense
700B (20%) Social Security
800B (23%) Medicare and Medicaid
200B (6%) Interest on the debt
2.4T (69%) Total

The first thing I'd like to do is freeze spending at a hard 3.5T a year. Of this, 500B must be used to pay off the debt every year. That means the country could pay off the 14.5T and would be debt free in about 30 years. That leaves a 3T budget and assumes the government can actually bring in 3.5T a year.


A bit confusing. You are starting with a roughly $1.5 trillion deficit and propose taking $500 billion of that deficit (which increases the debt by $500 billion) and use it to reduce the debt by $500 billion- so add half a trillion to the debt at the same time you reduce the debt by half a trillion? That has zero net effect. To be able to reduce the debt by $500 billion a year, you must take in half a trillion more in taxes than you spend. And to get rid of all the debt, you need to do that every year for over 28 years. If you are freezing spending at $3.5 trillion a year, you must raise your taxes by $2 trillion a year to accomplish that (getting your $500 billion extra a year to pay down the debt)- which would increase all taxes on average by eighty percent.

tangent4ronpaul
08-17-2011, 11:40 AM
That leaves a 3T budget and assumes the government can actually bring in 3.5T a year.

I'm figuring if we did these things, the economy would recover and that budget could be reduced as chunks of spending were pulled out.

It was kind of a mental scratchpad - what's it cost, what could we save, how do we pay off the debt....

-t

Zippyjuan
08-17-2011, 12:29 PM
I'm figuring if we did these things, the economy would recover and that budget could be reduced as chunks of spending were pulled out.

It was kind of a mental scratchpad - what's it cost, what could we save, how do we pay off the debt....

-t
So you are only increasing taxes by $1 trillion then or 40% (current revenues are about $2.5 trillion)?

tangent4ronpaul
08-17-2011, 01:11 PM
OK - well, planned spending is much more than that and the dollar is going down the crapper. In an ideal world - I should roll it back some - ideally back to year 2000 rates of spending. Trying to be realistic here... slow the trend. As a first step. Yeah - an additional 1T in taxes really sucks!

This should go the other way.

But I'm allready pushing - do you really think Congress would fo go for that much less in their budger?

I'm already proposing RADICAL change!

-t

Zippyjuan
08-17-2011, 01:40 PM
You are right- it is good to be looking at ways things can be improved. Congress talks budget cuts but don't dare say exactly WHAT they would cut (for fear of alienating some donor or voter) so little gets done. Even Rand Paul, in his proposed budget, assumed that taxes rose (he didn't come out and say that either but if you read through it one of the assumptions he makes is that revenues rise from 18% of GDP to 24% of GDP and the only way that happens is with higher taxes- otherwise the percent of GDP going to taxes would be the same even as the economy would grow- it also assumed the economy grows by 25% by the end of his budget plan). Despite all the cuts he does mention, at the end of the period spending would still be about the same it is now so yes, it is extremely difficult to try to even get a balanced budget- let alone create a significant surplus to try to pay down the debt with. Congress could not leave that money alone if they had it.

tangent4ronpaul
08-17-2011, 03:05 PM
Food feedback - thanks!