What We Did Not Know About the Ferrari in the Driveway
There has been a lot of talk since November about reigning in government spending. Most people are in favor of reducing government spending until their program is cut, their grant proposal is denied. The question is how can government be reigned in successfully and worthwhile programs be maintained. Here are some radically conservative ideas for making our country what Ronald Reagan dreamed we would be -- a city on a hill. On the occasion of his hundredth birthday we can experience what he called our great "rendezvous with destiny." But it will take radical solutions to get there. Let me offer a few, not so modest suggestions:
First, sunset ineffective agencies in census years. After George Washington became President he created 3 cabinet agencies he considered essential to government: the War Department (now called Defense), The Treasury Department, and the State Department. He recognized three essential functions of the executive branch -defense, money and relations with other nations. Since then for a variety of reasons administration haves continually created agencies to help them govern. These agencies have continued in perpetuity and have created hugh bureaucracies that out live there usefulness and often work at cross purposes with new leaders and contemporary needs. Some agencies are part of the cabinet, which means their top officials are appointed by the President and supposedly they carry out his agenda. But even some of the plutocrats who staff them believe that they are not accountable to Presidential politics. There are sub-agencies and bureaus that are too removed from the White House to have direct accountability to it.
Then there are a host of supposedly independent agencies (a virtual fourth branch of government) that are accountable to neither the President, the Congress nor the people who go about creating rules of their own making, and demanding funding, for example, The Federal Reserve System,The Environmental Protection Agency, Immigration and Customs Exchange and many others that are virtually unaccountable. Since the days of the New Deal all most every crisis has lead to the creation of a new government agency. A few years ago hurricane Andrew ravaged Florida and two others left a path of destruction along the South East Atlantic shore, the Clinton administration decided one coordinated federal agency to oversea disaster relief was needed (even though these disasters were managed admirably and effectively by the states with very little Federal Support. The President after seeing what a great job the states had done decided it could have been even better if Washington had been in control) The Federal Emergency Management Administration was created. If you have ever lived in an area that has suffered a disaster where FEMA has headed the relief effort (I have), you understand what people felt after President Bush's statement in the wake of Katrina "great job 'Brownie;' " It was not the President's finest hour. It was ludicrous. After 9/11 the two political parties offered different solutions to prevent attack; President Bush and the Republicans introduced and offered "The Patriot Act." Their democratic counterparts in Congress said we needed a new "cabinet level" coordinating agency. So in perhaps the Greatest Compromise since Philadelphia in 1776 to show their patriotism and non-partisan spirit in the wake of the attack, they did both Whether you agree with the Patriot Act or not, there have been significant arrests and interrogations under its authority that have subverted terrorist attacks. What comes to mind when you think of the Homeland Security Department? Aren't you glad we now have the TSA keeping our airports safe, or FEMA responding to crises like Katrina? Do we really need all these federal agencies to govern?
We all agree that the 3 services Washington recognized as essential, are. Any other agency should have to prove that its viability and effectiveness to continue to exist. Despite the creation of an Energy Department we are still dependent on foreign oil, and energy is more expensive. Despite the creation of an Education department fewer and fewer Americans are ever graduate from high school. Why do we need an Interior Department and an EPA? Why do we need a Commerce, Labor, or Agriculture Department. The problem with these agencies is once they are established thay are unaccountable and virtual unreformable. They are monoliths
My first radical proposal for conservative reforms is that every agency of government other than the Defense, Treasury, and State Department would have to be reauthorized,approved and funded every decade. The President who was in office would have to evaluate the effectiveness of the organization, explain why they were needed, and explain the return on investment the tax dollars spent on this agency had created. (If the job is too much a diversion from the duties of the President, maybe cost benefit analysis could be a legitimate function to assign to the Vice President) Does anyone think we would still need a transportation department? This would require every bureaucracy to explain its cost benefit to the American people. Failed agencies would either change direction or close.
A second radical proposal would be a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget, except in time of war or national emergency. In other words it would be illegal to spend beyond our means for infrastructure, administration or sustenance of government.
Third all non elected agency heads would serve an indefinite number of 17 year terms. No more jobs for life at tax payer expense. Now I do realize that some offices, like the judiciary need to be independent of the election cycles and of the Party in power. Seventeen year terms for agency heads would put them in office long enough to span 4 Presidential terms and two Senate terms, yet would prevent them from becoming entrenched in their position. Life time appointees become isolated and unaccountable. If they would hold office long enough to be unconnected to Presidential politics, but could removed when they became entrenched and unaccountable. It would create a much needed check and balance against some of the most oligarchical institutions in our country.
Next we simply must go to flat personal income tax where every one pays the same percentage or receive a moderate credit, and there are no exemptions or deductions, period. As crazy as it sounds Presidents Kennedy and Reagan proved that the best way to grow government revenue was by decreasing taxes. Now I hear the objection: how can we afford it, who is going to pay for it? There is a premise behind this question which is false: That increase government spending funds the material needs of the federal government. It is simply not true that more taxes are needed to sustain the Army, to pay Social Security Pension, to fund the creation of new energy sources and on and on. Since when has increased tax revenue satisfied the appetite of hungry federal agencies? Yet the more we spend, the less the agencies associated with these programs seem to have and the more they seem to need. The fact is increased government spending all most never goes to existing government programs. When taxes increase, government expands existing programs through borrowing, the increased revenue goes to pay the debt, its interest, and the a few new programs to satisfy special interest on election day. Give me one example where growing federal budgets have decreased the demand for money, or the deficit. Tax cuts grow the economy increase government revenue and make government more efficient.
Tax cuts put more money in the economy. The average person has more to spend, the average business has more to invest. There is money in the market place to tax, and more money in the treasury. Immediately following the election of George W. Bush the size of the government deficit grew, because of his prescription drug benefit boondoggle, and then because of military action following 9/11. Subsequent to that when he cut taxes the federal deficit decreased, government revenue grew, unemployment and inflation remained historically low during his Presidential years. With the exception of a couple of periods where gas spiked the Bush years were prosperous economically after he lowered taxes, and government programs did not suffer. His predecessor, Bill Clinton, taking a cue from Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, was able to leave office with a balanced budget and a government surplus declaring, "the era of big government is over." Who says tax decreases cost too much money? Everyone knows if you want to increase revenue in your store you don't raise the price of your product you have a sale. It is time for a virtual government fire sale.
One of the obstacles to reducing government spending is the financial crisis facing our large states. How can we get the states solvent again? As much as I admire the efforts of some governors to be fiscally responsible, some of them are not facing up to the elephant in the room. The federal government bears a major responsibility in the crisis the states face Were I governor of my home state New York in addition to the kind of tax cuts and austerity budgets he has proposed (which by the way I predict will not last. States simply have to have away to clear their books and get the albatross of debt off of their necks), I would ask my legislative delegation to introduce legislation creating legal venues for states to go bankrupt and putting their obligations into court managed receiverships.There are three financial obligations large states face that they cannot meet:
Federal unfunded mandates must come to and end. These are programs the federal government demands that states participate in then demands they fund. Its a great idea on the surface. It kind of like parking a Ferrari in one of my children's driveway on Christmas morning and leaving the key in their stocking. Can you imagine the shear ecstasy? The warm loving spirit we would have around the Christmas tree. That is the way the State often looks at Uncle Sam. The truly benevolent uncle, who can fund our hospitals, schools, home loans and disaster relief. But the joy of Christmas is short lived about six weeks later when we open the mail. You see what I did not tell my kids is that I forged their names on the promissory note. I left them with the bill. It is not a funny joke, and federal mandates (or in the case of New York,state mandates imposed on towns) are no laughing matter.
Movements like the TEA party -- taxed enough all ready, are reactions to a sense of betrayal many Americans feel their government has perpetrated. The Bill has come in for the Ferrari. The problem with government is that our federal taxes increase to create the grand agencies and programs that bring these Utopian solutions. Progressives think government should build and distribute the Ferrari (or in the case of Obama they should build Chevrolet, Cadillacs, Buick's and GM Cs). The tax payers are the venture capitalists. We are given the luxurious car, then force to pay for it, including the maintenance, the insurance, and the fuel. And guess what like luxurious cars government programs depreciate as soon as the legislation is signed creating them. Socialist Utopian ideals always lead to a dystopian reality.If the federal government will not end mandates, I just think the States ought to refuse the programs. The few times this has been done the feds have never penalized the state. That's because everyone knows that federal unfunded mandates are unconstitutional. The federal government has no more right to create a program and make the states pay for it, then I do to give my kids a Ferrari and make them pay for it. That is not a gift; it is extortion.
Second we must end 100% funded government employee benefits and government pension programs for employees. Before anyone accuses me of being a Grinch let me make it clear I am not proposing that government employees be they teachers, fireman, or clerks have any fewer benefits than private sector employees in the same field. Rather I believe people who want the privilege and the prestige of a professional career should work and be compensate like professionals. I pay part of my own health insurance and all of my family's, why should the average teacher or postal worker not do the same. I contribute to a retirement fund that my employer matches and after three years of employment I become vested. Why should not government retirements be funded the same way. We can expect public pensions to fail as private sector one have, how many IBMers, or former Enron employees, are collecting their pensions.
Third, public employees must be prohibited from unionizing and striking. Now before any one screams well don't they have the right to have people to represent them before their employers. I think the legislative branch of government is the civil servants ombudsmen. Civil servants are citizens. They have the power to vote. They have the power to argue in the public arena for their needs. Seriously, what community is going to close their own fire house? Private employees often work detached from the stockholders and executives who control the companies. They can amass great wealth create squalid working conditions live in opulence and never be held accountable. This is why unions are an economic benefit to industrial workers. But government workers, who are citizens themselves, are both taxpayers and voters. They fund their own entities and can elect their own representatives. Public sector unions take the accountability for services away from the people and turn them over to union officials who neither accountable to public, nor the government employee. Has any thing the National Education Association done in the last 30 years improved American education? Does anyone really believe they have a modicum of concern for our children. Public sector unions become oligarchies that hold the the people's security hostage to their agenda. They are modern day tyrants.
Throughout my life time I have witnessed the rise of the Utopian dream called progressivism (simply a euphemism for socialism). It left the country more polarized, with more people in poverty, subject to attack from with out and near economic demise. They have continued to advance their agenda which has left the society in bondage and chaos, while at the same time calling anyone who opposed them ignorant or uncompasssionate. President Carter rightly describe the dividend proressivism has paid calling it "our national malaise." The problem is we are not willing to face the truth about the Ferrari in the driveway. It really is beautiful, and it makes us feel good and be oh so happy, but someone has to pay for it. On hia 100th birthday as we reflect on the legacy Ronald Reagan and his optimistic vision for America to be the city on a hill. I believe we can go there again, but it is going to require some difficult choices and painful solutions. We might have to settle for the Taurus, at least, for awhile.
First, sunset ineffective agencies in census years. After George Washington became President he created 3 cabinet agencies he considered essential to government: the War Department (now called Defense), The Treasury Department, and the State Department. He recognized three essential functions of the executive branch -defense, money and relations with other nations. Since then for a variety of reasons administration haves continually created agencies to help them govern. These agencies have continued in perpetuity and have created hugh bureaucracies that out live there usefulness and often work at cross purposes with new leaders and contemporary needs. Some agencies are part of the cabinet, which means their top officials are appointed by the President and supposedly they carry out his agenda. But even some of the plutocrats who staff them believe that they are not accountable to Presidential politics. There are sub-agencies and bureaus that are too removed from the White House to have direct accountability to it.
Then there are a host of supposedly independent agencies (a virtual fourth branch of government) that are accountable to neither the President, the Congress nor the people who go about creating rules of their own making, and demanding funding, for example, The Federal Reserve System,The Environmental Protection Agency, Immigration and Customs Exchange and many others that are virtually unaccountable. Since the days of the New Deal all most every crisis has lead to the creation of a new government agency. A few years ago hurricane Andrew ravaged Florida and two others left a path of destruction along the South East Atlantic shore, the Clinton administration decided one coordinated federal agency to oversea disaster relief was needed (even though these disasters were managed admirably and effectively by the states with very little Federal Support. The President after seeing what a great job the states had done decided it could have been even better if Washington had been in control) The Federal Emergency Management Administration was created. If you have ever lived in an area that has suffered a disaster where FEMA has headed the relief effort (I have), you understand what people felt after President Bush's statement in the wake of Katrina "great job 'Brownie;' " It was not the President's finest hour. It was ludicrous. After 9/11 the two political parties offered different solutions to prevent attack; President Bush and the Republicans introduced and offered "The Patriot Act." Their democratic counterparts in Congress said we needed a new "cabinet level" coordinating agency. So in perhaps the Greatest Compromise since Philadelphia in 1776 to show their patriotism and non-partisan spirit in the wake of the attack, they did both Whether you agree with the Patriot Act or not, there have been significant arrests and interrogations under its authority that have subverted terrorist attacks. What comes to mind when you think of the Homeland Security Department? Aren't you glad we now have the TSA keeping our airports safe, or FEMA responding to crises like Katrina? Do we really need all these federal agencies to govern?
We all agree that the 3 services Washington recognized as essential, are. Any other agency should have to prove that its viability and effectiveness to continue to exist. Despite the creation of an Energy Department we are still dependent on foreign oil, and energy is more expensive. Despite the creation of an Education department fewer and fewer Americans are ever graduate from high school. Why do we need an Interior Department and an EPA? Why do we need a Commerce, Labor, or Agriculture Department. The problem with these agencies is once they are established thay are unaccountable and virtual unreformable. They are monoliths
My first radical proposal for conservative reforms is that every agency of government other than the Defense, Treasury, and State Department would have to be reauthorized,approved and funded every decade. The President who was in office would have to evaluate the effectiveness of the organization, explain why they were needed, and explain the return on investment the tax dollars spent on this agency had created. (If the job is too much a diversion from the duties of the President, maybe cost benefit analysis could be a legitimate function to assign to the Vice President) Does anyone think we would still need a transportation department? This would require every bureaucracy to explain its cost benefit to the American people. Failed agencies would either change direction or close.
A second radical proposal would be a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget, except in time of war or national emergency. In other words it would be illegal to spend beyond our means for infrastructure, administration or sustenance of government.
Third all non elected agency heads would serve an indefinite number of 17 year terms. No more jobs for life at tax payer expense. Now I do realize that some offices, like the judiciary need to be independent of the election cycles and of the Party in power. Seventeen year terms for agency heads would put them in office long enough to span 4 Presidential terms and two Senate terms, yet would prevent them from becoming entrenched in their position. Life time appointees become isolated and unaccountable. If they would hold office long enough to be unconnected to Presidential politics, but could removed when they became entrenched and unaccountable. It would create a much needed check and balance against some of the most oligarchical institutions in our country.
Next we simply must go to flat personal income tax where every one pays the same percentage or receive a moderate credit, and there are no exemptions or deductions, period. As crazy as it sounds Presidents Kennedy and Reagan proved that the best way to grow government revenue was by decreasing taxes. Now I hear the objection: how can we afford it, who is going to pay for it? There is a premise behind this question which is false: That increase government spending funds the material needs of the federal government. It is simply not true that more taxes are needed to sustain the Army, to pay Social Security Pension, to fund the creation of new energy sources and on and on. Since when has increased tax revenue satisfied the appetite of hungry federal agencies? Yet the more we spend, the less the agencies associated with these programs seem to have and the more they seem to need. The fact is increased government spending all most never goes to existing government programs. When taxes increase, government expands existing programs through borrowing, the increased revenue goes to pay the debt, its interest, and the a few new programs to satisfy special interest on election day. Give me one example where growing federal budgets have decreased the demand for money, or the deficit. Tax cuts grow the economy increase government revenue and make government more efficient.
Tax cuts put more money in the economy. The average person has more to spend, the average business has more to invest. There is money in the market place to tax, and more money in the treasury. Immediately following the election of George W. Bush the size of the government deficit grew, because of his prescription drug benefit boondoggle, and then because of military action following 9/11. Subsequent to that when he cut taxes the federal deficit decreased, government revenue grew, unemployment and inflation remained historically low during his Presidential years. With the exception of a couple of periods where gas spiked the Bush years were prosperous economically after he lowered taxes, and government programs did not suffer. His predecessor, Bill Clinton, taking a cue from Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, was able to leave office with a balanced budget and a government surplus declaring, "the era of big government is over." Who says tax decreases cost too much money? Everyone knows if you want to increase revenue in your store you don't raise the price of your product you have a sale. It is time for a virtual government fire sale.
One of the obstacles to reducing government spending is the financial crisis facing our large states. How can we get the states solvent again? As much as I admire the efforts of some governors to be fiscally responsible, some of them are not facing up to the elephant in the room. The federal government bears a major responsibility in the crisis the states face Were I governor of my home state New York in addition to the kind of tax cuts and austerity budgets he has proposed (which by the way I predict will not last. States simply have to have away to clear their books and get the albatross of debt off of their necks), I would ask my legislative delegation to introduce legislation creating legal venues for states to go bankrupt and putting their obligations into court managed receiverships.There are three financial obligations large states face that they cannot meet:
Federal unfunded mandates must come to and end. These are programs the federal government demands that states participate in then demands they fund. Its a great idea on the surface. It kind of like parking a Ferrari in one of my children's driveway on Christmas morning and leaving the key in their stocking. Can you imagine the shear ecstasy? The warm loving spirit we would have around the Christmas tree. That is the way the State often looks at Uncle Sam. The truly benevolent uncle, who can fund our hospitals, schools, home loans and disaster relief. But the joy of Christmas is short lived about six weeks later when we open the mail. You see what I did not tell my kids is that I forged their names on the promissory note. I left them with the bill. It is not a funny joke, and federal mandates (or in the case of New York,state mandates imposed on towns) are no laughing matter.
Movements like the TEA party -- taxed enough all ready, are reactions to a sense of betrayal many Americans feel their government has perpetrated. The Bill has come in for the Ferrari. The problem with government is that our federal taxes increase to create the grand agencies and programs that bring these Utopian solutions. Progressives think government should build and distribute the Ferrari (or in the case of Obama they should build Chevrolet, Cadillacs, Buick's and GM Cs). The tax payers are the venture capitalists. We are given the luxurious car, then force to pay for it, including the maintenance, the insurance, and the fuel. And guess what like luxurious cars government programs depreciate as soon as the legislation is signed creating them. Socialist Utopian ideals always lead to a dystopian reality.If the federal government will not end mandates, I just think the States ought to refuse the programs. The few times this has been done the feds have never penalized the state. That's because everyone knows that federal unfunded mandates are unconstitutional. The federal government has no more right to create a program and make the states pay for it, then I do to give my kids a Ferrari and make them pay for it. That is not a gift; it is extortion.
Second we must end 100% funded government employee benefits and government pension programs for employees. Before anyone accuses me of being a Grinch let me make it clear I am not proposing that government employees be they teachers, fireman, or clerks have any fewer benefits than private sector employees in the same field. Rather I believe people who want the privilege and the prestige of a professional career should work and be compensate like professionals. I pay part of my own health insurance and all of my family's, why should the average teacher or postal worker not do the same. I contribute to a retirement fund that my employer matches and after three years of employment I become vested. Why should not government retirements be funded the same way. We can expect public pensions to fail as private sector one have, how many IBMers, or former Enron employees, are collecting their pensions.
Third, public employees must be prohibited from unionizing and striking. Now before any one screams well don't they have the right to have people to represent them before their employers. I think the legislative branch of government is the civil servants ombudsmen. Civil servants are citizens. They have the power to vote. They have the power to argue in the public arena for their needs. Seriously, what community is going to close their own fire house? Private employees often work detached from the stockholders and executives who control the companies. They can amass great wealth create squalid working conditions live in opulence and never be held accountable. This is why unions are an economic benefit to industrial workers. But government workers, who are citizens themselves, are both taxpayers and voters. They fund their own entities and can elect their own representatives. Public sector unions take the accountability for services away from the people and turn them over to union officials who neither accountable to public, nor the government employee. Has any thing the National Education Association done in the last 30 years improved American education? Does anyone really believe they have a modicum of concern for our children. Public sector unions become oligarchies that hold the the people's security hostage to their agenda. They are modern day tyrants.
Throughout my life time I have witnessed the rise of the Utopian dream called progressivism (simply a euphemism for socialism). It left the country more polarized, with more people in poverty, subject to attack from with out and near economic demise. They have continued to advance their agenda which has left the society in bondage and chaos, while at the same time calling anyone who opposed them ignorant or uncompasssionate. President Carter rightly describe the dividend proressivism has paid calling it "our national malaise." The problem is we are not willing to face the truth about the Ferrari in the driveway. It really is beautiful, and it makes us feel good and be oh so happy, but someone has to pay for it. On hia 100th birthday as we reflect on the legacy Ronald Reagan and his optimistic vision for America to be the city on a hill. I believe we can go there again, but it is going to require some difficult choices and painful solutions. We might have to settle for the Taurus, at least, for awhile.
Comments
Post a Comment