I know we've talked about this one before, but it just never made sense to me to cut taxes BEFORE a budget was finalized. At the time we talked about this before, some folks said that it was important to reduce the money available BEFORE the budget was decided. I could kindof agree with that. There IS that "the more money you Have, the more money you Spend" philosophy on spending.

HOWEVER, I STILL think that paying the important bills must come first. Deficit spending is akin to massive credit card debt, IMO.

How do you see the Federal Budget coinciding with spending needs?

Can we really do it all?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 10, 2001

Answers

Anita:

Just consider this one quote:

[Why did congressional and White House negotiators adopt these spending projections? Because without them, there was virtually no way they could come up with numbers suggesting the nation could afford to forego $1.35 trillion in revenue over 11 years.]

Notice something important here? *The Nation* did NOT "forego" 1.35 trillion in revenue, the nation SAVED 1.35 trillion. It was *The Government* that didn't get that money FROM the nation.

The Washington Post needs some elementary understanding of terms.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 10, 2001.

Flint: I don't agree with your nit-picking on the nation. Perhaps in contrast with KoFE, it's always been MY understanding that we ARE the nation, and we ARE the government. Did I somehow miss something when I was taught "for, by and OF the people?"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 10, 2001.

Yes

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), September 10, 2001.

Anita:

I'm not surprised you see something so fundamental as "nit-picking". If you are right and we are both the nation and the government, then it's impossible to "forego" anything. We either keep the money to ourselves as a nation, or we confiscate it to give to ourselves as the government. Right? Just one hand paying the other, eh?

Now, to me, government expenditure rates are important, because my input into government spending decisions is so very indirect. I'm obliged to do without a great deal I'd prefer not to go without, so that the government can use my money to fund a great many programs I'd gladly pay to *discontinue* altogether! And the higher the tax rates, the less say-so I have over what I earn. You may believe that everything the government spends your money on whether you like it or not are ALL wiser choices than ANYTHING you might choose all by yourself, but I don't feel that way.

The Washington Post, on the other hand, clearly agrees with you. Their complaint was crystal clear -- that money we don't send to Washington to be spent as the bureaucracy sees fit, and instead spend as we as individuals prefer, is money FOREGONE to us as a nation! This is not a nit. The Post (read that quote again) sees no difference between the government and the nation. As usual. So once again, we're talking about a 1.35 trillion *national benefit*, virtually unalloyed. Hooray!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 10, 2001.

Flint: I think of the Federal Budget much like I think of my family budget. Some in the family might want to spend money on things that TO ME are frivolous, and I oftentimes get overruled on priorities. Under-spending is no problem. The money just get saved. Over- spending, however, throws red flags up in my mind and I fight harder to make my voice heard.

I wouldn't think of withdrawing the money in savings and giving each member of the household a portion of that savings to do with what they choose until the budget had been finalized.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 10, 2001.

The Federal Government is spending money that it rightfully should not. There was never any intent in the formastion of our government for the Feds to spend on any and all programs that simply look desirable. That is the prerogative of the states.

So what are these "important bills" that must be paid??!! The point is, they never have should have been bills to be paid by the Federal Government in the first place!!

It's wacky to think that our tax pyramid is completly upside down, with the bulk of it going to the Federal Government.

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), September 11, 2001.

Anita:

Your reply is illuminating. Either you are saying that the family budget basically exists to subsidize non-earners (children?), or that it exists because you view nearly all individual preferences as properly subsumed into the consensus preferences of the family.

In the case of the Federal budget, the first possibility strikes me as a misinterpretation. All tax-paying citizens are wage-earners in this national "family", and those who are not (children?) are properly subsidized by their kin, NOT by faceless taxpayers fronted by bureaucrats from atop their mountain of red tape.

So you must be visualizing the second situation -- that individuals might be mature enough each to earn a living on their own, but for their own good this must not be allowed. Instead, they must tithe half their income to "the family", which will then spend their money on their behalf, except much more wisely!

The whole idea of "household savings" is very weird. Who is "the household", and why should they have the power to deprive me of my earnings in order to "save" it whether or not I (who actually earned that money) might have something better to do with it? Both saving and overspending are the prerogative of individuals. These should NOT be collective decisions.

I personally have no problem with the idea of returning to its proper owners some of the money "the family" coerced out of them, and THEN budgeting with something at least a bit closer to what should be common cause. Budgets tend to expand to fill the money available, and when you have the power to FORCE it to be available, there is a positive feedback effect. We've been watching this since before I was born.

I have seen cultures, however, where the family is the ONLY financial unit. Every member gives 100% of their income to the family (minus what the government took, of course), and then the Matriarch, with the input from the others, makes all spending decisions. In other words, this is a straight "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" communistic approach. When such families move to the US, and the members (*especially* those earning the most) figure out that they are not required to subsidize the freeloaders, few of these family unit financial arrangements last very long.

But mutual benefit arrangements (roommates) does work, so long as all required mutual expenses (rent, power, etc.) are known to all, and the division of payment is strictly equitable. In other words, everyone involved must know exactly what they will get in exchange for their contribution, and must know that they are contributing nothing more. They know that not one penny they contributed is being spent on anything they didn't contribute it to be spent on in the first place.

So for me, the best thing to do is to return every penny "the family" stole from its members. THEN create a budget to cover the minimum necessary to run a good government, rather than to spend the maximum that can be collected. THEN create a flat tax (strictly equitable) to raise that minumum amount. Collecting all you can extort and THEN deciding how to waste it is NOT good government. Honest. Your family might be great for those who are "more equal than others", but for the less equal of the equals, it's a rip-off.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 11, 2001.

"So for me, the best thing to do is to return every penny "the family" stole from its members. THEN create a budget to cover the minimum necessary to run a good government, rather than to spend the maximum that can be collected."

So Flint, who gets to define what is a "good" government? I see this as the fatal flaw to your argument that the system now does not work and is not right. It all gets down to who's ideal of government you use. Given that we operate under a representative form of government that necessitates compromise in order to represent the diverse opinions of this nation you are essentially arguing against the Unites States Constitution.

I am apalled at your bad mouthing of this great country of ours. You had better watch it or the next thing you know you will be on Betsy Ross' list as a communist!

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 12, 2001.

JBT:

Good question. Perhaps we really do get the government we deserve. I suspect the Washington Post correctly mirrors the national mood when they cannot distinguish between the government and the nation, and consider that the nation is being deprived of every cent NOT collected in taxes and spent by bureaucrats.

All I'm willing to do as a citizen, however, is vote my preferences and argue as well as I can that there is such a thing as both too little and too much government, and we have erred in the latter direction. And one way to make that argument is to point out that we the people are hardly "foregoing" what is NOT being confiscated from us. Quite the contrary. Maybe Anita can see that. Maybe you can too.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 12, 2001.

I totally agree Flint. As has been mentioned before, the Russians have a history of ruthless paybacks and the terrorists pretty much give them a wide berth. Maybe we should take out Baghdad and rid the world of those vermin. They only understand one language so lets speak it, loud and clear!

Just My Pissed-Off Opinion

-- Just (my@2.cents), September 12, 2001.

Flint: Sorry to ignore you on this topic this week, but my mind was on other subjects.

I think we're seeing right now the need for savings. FEMA's budget had already been cut to bare bones and the Social Security surplus was being used for "normal" spending. Now we have another $40 billion that must come from the Social Security surplus because there's no other fund from which it CAN come.

I'm not saying that these funds should NOT be appropriated at this time from the SS surplus, but I will suggest that a more prudent measure would have been to leave some monies available for emergencies. *I* do this in normal budgeting, as I'm sure most folks do. We never know when unforeseen things will happen, so we try to keep a "nest egg" on hand to accommodate the unforeseen.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 15, 2001.

BUY WAR BONDS.................LOL

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), September 15, 2001.