but they are again refusing to face facts in front of them..its not unfunded health care liabilities..its UNFUNDED LIABILITIES in FED Budget that means anytime a law is passed without the means to pay for it..for example going to war in Iraq, etc without raising taxes to pay for it..
Another example taking over the Ed Loans from the private sector and than not raising some type of tax to pay for it.
It should be that in order to pass a bill in Congress that a pair of bills one to enact the law and one to pay for it. That is the budget reform that we need.
> Another example taking over the Ed Loans from the private sector and than not raising some type of tax to pay for it.
Don't take talking points at face value... Student loans in the "private sector" were a misnomer--they were backed by the Fed Gov't. The private lender had no risk, just guaranteed profit. We saved money by ending subsidizing the private market and making the loans directly. The "takeover" was simply ending the government backing of private loans. Not much of a takeover if you ask me. The private sector can still make loans all they want, they just have to be on the hook for it.
Your student loan bill is a bad example. In this case the Gov't was already subsidizing these loans and being charged enough by the banks servicing them for those banks to also turn a profit on that line of business.
By bringing it in-house, the governement doesn't increase their liabilities, and now they don't have to pad the profit margins of loan servicers.
But anyways, generally, what you're talking about is call "paygo" rules. They've been instituted before as house rules (and commonly ignored), you're advocating for them being codified into law. Not a bad idea I don't think, but i haven't given it a lot of thought.
1. Every year, the US Government figures out how much money it wants to spend.
2. Then, it figures out what the (flat) tax rate would need to be in order to rustle up that much money.
3. Then, it sets the tax rate and sends everyone a bill.
You could do this a year in advance just to make sure everybody knew how much they'd be getting taxed. But the important thing is that everybody in the country needs to see the immediate hip-pocket consequences when the government spends more money.
Still doesn't help with things like SS and Medicare, though, which cost a little bit of money in the year they're passed and vast sums of money several decades into the future.
Then a financial crisis hits and the government finds itself unable to react to the needs of a paralyzed market. It's a nice idea in principle. But any time something like this or a balanced budget law/rule comes up in congress, it never has a provision for reacting to emergencies.
The problem with that is, as we've seen (and are seeing), it's trivial to manufacture an 'emergency' or a 'crisis' on demand, whenever it's convenient.
A government that can react to real crises while being vulnerable to fake ones is the best option I've seen so far. People are very creative when it comes to working around problems. Some people see data processing efficiency as a problem to solve. Others see finding ways to manipulate government for profit as one.
You have to give him credit for the less-is-more approach to this answer, you summed up centuries of macroeconomics and people who dedicated their lives to finding the most optimal solutions in a very easy to follow <ol>, well done!
Another example taking over the Ed Loans from the private sector and than not raising some type of tax to pay for it.
It should be that in order to pass a bill in Congress that a pair of bills one to enact the law and one to pay for it. That is the budget reform that we need.