Never gonna cap that red ink gusher, are they?

From this link.

 

Democrats on meaningful debt reform: “No.”

The Washington Examiner published an editorial today that takes the Democrats to task for their obstructionist approach to the debt ceiling debate. In “Democrats create theater of the absurd on debt ceiling,” no words are minced:

What is really outrageous about the Democrats’ arguments, however, is that they can all be boiled down to one word: no. No, to meaningful entitlement reform. No, to actually reducing the total number of tax dollars and borrowed money spent by the federal government. No, to credible caps on future federal spending. No, to a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. No, to fiscal sanity.

These “no” choruses are coming from our congresswoman too. Lynn Woolsey doesn’t want to bite the bullet and solve the tough issues. She just wants to keep raising the debt ceiling and keep those TRILLIONS flowing. This is outrageous behavior from a person who has sworn an oath to protect the interests of our country. Rep. Woolsey and the rest of Congress (whatever their party) MUST stop pretending that we can just continue business as usual. We can’t. Congress has gotten into the unforgivable habit of outrageously overspending. NOW, it must stop. It MUST change its destructive habits. Lynn Woolsey, instead of issuing her ridiculous attacks against the Republicans, should understand the necessity of everyone in Washington working for real reform, real fiscal sanity.

The One Cent (or 1%) Solution

Gaining traction is Rep. Connie Mack’s national debt solution. See the details here…and sign the petition and donate. Under this plan, we could balance the national budget in eight years. It is a simple plan and would make reductions on a common sense basis — 1% of the total federal budget (one penny out of every budget dollar) would be reduced each year for six years. Then the plan would cap spending to 18% of GDP beginning in 2018 and beyond.

We must balance the budget. We must get our federal spending under control. This plan can do it. Support it.

“$4 Trillion or Bust — Even If It Takes Us Two Tries”

Lynn Woolsey continues her fruitless finger-pointing at Republicans regarding the debt ceiling process. Her latest remark: “…it is ‘time for the Republican majority to grow up and support a long-term debt ceiling increase that protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.’ ” She has never understood how these are structured and the very real need to reform them in order to keep them functioning. She also looks at our federal fiscal situation as simply a gravy train that should, in her view, continue indefinitely to increase payouts. That is the reason she has said several times that she supports a debt ceiling increase (see, for example, this previous post of mine). Note that she doesn’t couple that insistence on raising the debt ceiling with any cuts in spending. She has no understanding of the real value of money.

Unlike our congresswoman, The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget does know the dangers to our country if we just raise the debt ceiling, period. On July 25, 2011, this organization released a paper entitled, “$4 Trillion of Bust — Even If It Takes Us Two Tries.” The president of The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Maya MacGuineas stated,

“We’re down to the wire, so it is reasonable for lawmakers to focus on a two-part approach which raises the debt ceiling and enacts a down payment on deficit reduction, while putting in place a credible process to achieve additional savings…”

The paper recommends:

Enact a strong down payment. 

 While agreement on the larger reforms necessary to achieve significant savings may not be possible in the time available to reach an agreement, lawmakers should include as much in savings as possible in the down payment.

Focus on debt to avoid gimmicks.

 

The ultimate goal of a fiscal plan must be to stabilize and reduce our debt as a percentage of the economy. Baseline gimmicks can artificially inflate savings, so policymakers should set explicit debt targets to ensure any deal is achieving its mission. Any plan that falls short of stabilizing the debt as a percentage of GDP — no matter how big it is described in terms of savings– would not be enough to get the job done. The Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform has recommended a debt of 60 percent of GDP level by the end of the decade.

 

Keep everything on the table.

 

In order to be credible a process to achieve further savings, it must be accompanied by an explicit commitment by both parties to keep all options on the table for potential savings. The work of the Gang of Six, the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission, and other bipartisan efforts to reduce the deficit have demonstrated that reaching agreement on a serious long-term fiscal plan will require tackling tough choices in all parts of the budget, including healthcare, Social Security, and revenues. If any areas of the budget are placed off limits for further savings, the process will justifiably be viewed as a recipe for gridlock and inaction.

 

Enforcement, Enforcement, Enforcement.

 

Any deal will require a mechanism to ensure future savings targets are achieved, and any two-part deal will require a way to ensure the second part is actually enacted. An enforcement mechanism must require both parties to “have skin in the game” to provide an incentive for negotiators to reach an agreement on a plan. CRFB has advocated across-the-board spending and tax expenditures cuts (or a tax surcharge) to be automatically triggered if debt stabilization goals are not projected to be met. We also support a short-term increase in the debt ceiling to ensure promised savings are realized.

 

These are measured recommendations that avoid partisan accusations. Note too that the text says that healthcare and Social Security cannot be held exempt from this process.

This approach does not include discussion of the balanced budget amendment, which I support, but that aside, it does represent balanced advice for the politicians. It would be immensely helpful if our congresswoman could also join in the process from constructive and realistic standpoint. I suggest she and her staff read this paper and try to adopt some of its recommendations.

Vote YES for a balanced budget amendment!

Rep. Woolsey, to get our federal fiscal house in order, we need a balanced budget amendment. This week, we’re told, the House will have the chance to vote again on a balanced budget amendment. By googling “balanced budget amendment,” one can find quite a selection of opinions that pan the idea such an amendment could be enforced and could be the answer to our federal financial irresponsibility (see, for example, this article and this one). But there are others (see this link and also this one) that methodically and rationally explain why such an amendment is perhaps our best hope. Perhaps this opinion piece by Rep. Tom Rooney makes the best pro case:

An amendment would ensure that we never face a debt crisis like we do today. It would show the American people that we’re ready to be responsible stewards of their tax dollars.

The massive borrowing by the federal government is hurting economic growth. Fearing the higher taxes, inflation and borrowing costs of a looming debt crisis, businesses are hunkering down, and job creation has stalled. A balanced budget amendment would give the private sector certainty.

Opponents ask, Can’t Congress and the president already balance the budget? Yes, but history has shown that the ability has not translated into action. For the most part, people want lower taxes, but they don’t want to lose spending programs they like. For example, few would dispute that Medicare and Social Security are on fiscally unsustainable paths, yet most begin to squirm when specific reforms are proposed. Even spending projects that you and I might find wasteful have a bloc of committed supporters.

Politicians typically have bowed to this public pressure, finding it easy to reduce taxes but difficult to cut spending. This is our political reality: Government spending is almost impossible to cut, especially when government is divided between Republicans and Democrats.

A balanced budget amendment would challenge this system head-on by forcing Congress and the president to spend no more than they take in through taxes. No more avoiding tough decisions. No more ducking responsibility and blaming the other party. And, most important, no more deficits.

Sometimes fiscal discipline cannot be obtained without an inviolate constraint on the political process. Without an amendment, Congress and the president are too prone to bow to the pleas of this interest and that. With one, at least there will be a constitutional obligation that will supersede all those clamoring interests. Of course, there will still be intense competition among those interests to get the dollars that will be available, but at least everyone will have to be on the same page: there will only be as much money to spend as is gathered in revenue. This is the way it should always have been. Ideally, we should have abided by the simple principle throughout our history just as a matter of common sense. But we did not. So, now we must take the step of forcing our politicians (and forcing us) to live within our means. If a balanced budget amendment is able to jump all the hurdles required to go into effect, we will have a solid foundation for future federal budgets. Unfortunately, we will still have to deal with the elephant in the room: the 14 TRILLION dollar national debt we have racked up. Nevertheless, better late than never: pass that balanced budget amendment!

And you, Rep. Woolsey, do yourself and your district credit and see the need for this balanced budget amendment. You won’t be in Congress if and when it takes effect, but you can at least vote for it as a sign that you realize the impossibility of continuing to recklessly spend as you and your colleagues have been doing. There is still time for you to vote for responsible financial underpinnings in Washington D.C.

TSA manhandles cancer survivor — again!

Why is it that Lynn Woolsey bills herself as a champion of civil rights, but when it comes to the rights of people to be treated respectfully by the TSA at airports, she is silent? Where is her determination to right the wrongs being done by the TSA? Where is her willingness to enter into alliance with other House members and craft a bill that will rein in the improper and unconstitutional methods of the TSA?

Today we learn again of the TSA using invasive search methods on cancer survivor Tom Sawyer. It wasn’t enough that they humiliated him in an earlier search. No, once again they searched him and when they found his necessary urostomy bag managed to spill its contents on him. What utter insanity. This search should NEVER have taken place at all. It is a clear violation of this and every other innocents passenger’s basic civil rights.

So, once again, where are YOU, Rep. Woolsey? Why aren’t you taking action? Why aren’t these civil rights important to you?

Even Slate understands our fiscal predicament…

“Are We Broke Yet?” in Slate presents two graphs that chillingly depict our federal financial situation. One of them is entitled “Cash in the Treasury’s Bank Account” (in billions of dollars) and the other is “Total National Debt” (in TRILLIONS of dollars). Look at them and weep. Actually, look at them and demand that Congress and the president hold the line on further spending NOW.

If Slate can recognize the dire problem, why can’t Lynn Woolsey? Will she ever comprehend that we just cannot continue to spend? Not likely, unfortunately. Nevertheless, tell her anyway that she needs to vote for reductions in spending. She may be a lame duck, but she continues to have a vote in the House until the day she actually retires.

Americans want Cut, Cap, and Balance Plan

Lynn Woolsey is out of step — again — with most Americans. Two-thirds of those polled by CNN approve of the House-passed Cut, Cap, and Balance plan. Not surprisingly, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which Lynn Woolsey is a member and former chair, blasted this plan. Most Americans understand the grave need for true reform of the business-as-usual of Washington. Lynn Woolsey and the progressives do not.

It’s official: Lynn Woolsey will retire after 20 years in Congress

Rep. Woolsey announced that she will retire from the House when her current term expires. The full text of her speech can be read here, but the key quote came at the conclusion:

“But I will turn 75 years old just before the next Election Day, and after two decades of service to this district, it will be time for me to move on. And so, with enormous gratitude but not an ounce of regret, I am announcing that I will not run for re-election in 2012. I will retire at the end of my current term.

“I leave it to you, the people of the Sixth District, to decide who should take up the mantle and continue this important work.

“It’s been such a privilege to serve. From the bottom of my heart: thank you.”

The very progressive Lynn Woolsey was able to convince the heavily Democrat 6th District to vote her into office ten times. For many of us who opposed her expansionary government, big spending views, it has been a long twenty years.

I wish Rep. Woolsey well in her retirement. I hope it is a complete retirement from public office of any kind.

Whether I or you will be a 6th District voter after the Redistricting Commission completes its final maps (and the inevitable court challenges are over) remains to be seen. At the moment, it looks as though I will not be in the coastal district in which Norman Solomon and Jared Huffman expect to run. That will be all to the good, since I couldn’t support either of them.

But for the moment, back to the events of today. Yes, I do wish Lynn Woolsey all the best. Despite the vast differences in most of our political beliefs, I respect her willingness to have served in government, and one of the things I think can be said of her is that she did not go to Washington to get rich off the public larder and as far as I know, she never committed any ethics violations or brought scandal on herself or her district. For these things, I thank her.

Ready to finally do something about the TSA, Rep. Woolsey?

The latest outrage by the TSA is reported here. Yes indeed, that TSA is really protecting us! That 95-year-old lady suffering from cancer, she really is a prime terrorism suspect, isn’t she? And goodness knows, that protective undergarment of hers has to be the ultimate hijacking weapon! Absolutely ludicrous!

Congress MUST rein in the TSA. You, Congresswoman Woolsey, stop acting clueless and get cracking with your colleagues from both sides of the aisle on a bill to stop these senseless TSA abuses. DO IT NOW!