Pay-as-you-go budgets, Just Go Away!

Professor Peabody · 07-31-2008, 02:27 AM

Quote:

DEMOCRATIC PROMISE #57: Institute “PAYGO” To Control Spending

Promise: “Democrats are committed to fiscal responsibility through pay-as-you-go budgets, so that our children and grandchildren are not saddled with mountains of debt.”
– Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) Website

Broken Promise: “In Washington congressional leaders have imposed ‘pay-as-you-go’ budget rules that exclude the existing entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, which dominate federal spending. So ‘paygo’ is really just political cover for new taxes to support new spending.”

– “Killing the Goose,” San Diego Union Tribune Editorial, April 16, 2007
House Democrats' Top 100 Broken Promises: Fiscal Responsibility & Taxes

Ah but it's worst than that. A bill was introduced to stop automatic pay raises for Members of Congress in any year that follows a budget deficit. It gives a real incentive for them to follow "Pay as you Go" budgeting.

Quote:

H.R. 229

Deficit Accountability Act of 2007

1/4/2007--Introduced.

Deficit Accountability Act of 2007 - Amends the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 to provide that pay for Members of Congress may not be increased by any adjustment scheduled to take effect in a calendar year if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determines there was a deficit in the preceding fiscal year.
All Bill Actions

Introduced on Jan 04, 2007.

Jan 04, 2007: Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Jan 04, 2007: Referred to House House Administration

Jan 04, 2007: Referred to House Oversight and Government Reform

Jan 05, 2007: Introductory remarks on measure. (CR E22-23)

Jan 05, 2007: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E22-23)

OpenCongress - H.R.229 Deficit Accountability Act of 2007

A great bill that would have truly held Congress responsible for their actions, balance the budget or no raise next year. We all have performance evaluations at our work (not me I'm retired) if we don't perform our jobs as expected NO RAISE. Why should they get automatic raises no matter how poorly they do their jobs. That's likely why they DO their jobs so poorly. Real meaningful reform kicked to the curb in committee, never to see the light of day again.

johnlocke · 07-31-2008, 08:12 AM

I'd be happy if they just made the red staters pay for all the benefits they get. Dollar for dollar the blue states pay more in taxes and get less back in benefits and spending from the federal government than the people in red states do.

Think for myself · 07-31-2008, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnlocke

I'd be happy if they just made the red staters pay for all the benefits they get. Dollar for dollar the blue states pay more in taxes and get less back in benefits and spending from the federal government than the people in red states do.

Why is that do you think?

Out here in liberal California we getback far less federal money than what we pay.

Defensor · 07-31-2008, 09:06 AM

Abolish the Federal Reserve, and the problem is solved.

mjdsr · 07-31-2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Why is that do you think?

Out here in liberal California we getback far less federal money than what we pay.

The poorer states tend to elect Republicans. People who make good money tend to live in the affluent suburbs of blue states. Maybe the poorer states tend to vote Republican because of the promise to keep taxes low. At the same time, the poor also get more back from the system.

I remember reading somewhere that Florida received one dollar for every dollar it sent to the federal government. This is interesting since it is a pivotal state during the election.

Nerv14 · 07-31-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjdsr

The poorer states tend to elect Republicans. People who make good money tend to live in the affluent suburbs of blue states. Maybe the poorer states tend to vote Republican because of the promise to keep taxes low. At the same time, the poor also get more back from the system.

I remember reading somewhere that Florida received one dollar for every dollar it sent to the federal government. This is interesting since it is a pivotal state during the election.

Even if poorer states seem to be Republican, if you look at any polls, the richer someone is then higher chance they have of being Republican.

Inner cities have very large amounts of poor people, so I suppose that makes democrats normally poorer, regardless of what states are poor or not.

mjdsr · 07-31-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nerv14

Even if poorer states seem to be Republican, if you look at any polls, the richer someone is then higher chance they have of being Republican.

I don't know what the statistics are on this, but I know a good deal of wealthy people who are democrat.

Quote:

Inner cities have very large amounts of poor people, so I suppose that makes democrats normally poorer, regardless of what states are poor or not.

Yes, the inner cities have large amounts of poor people. Of course they are going to vote democrat, because they want to get their entitlements.

The cities also have affluent suburbs, whose residents make good money.
The income taxes are higher in the blue states, and those who face the biggest burden of tax increases are usually in the inner suburbs surrounding the cities of the blue states.

TFM brought up California. They are a high tax, high cost of living state. They don't get as much back as what they put in. This is a perfect example of the redistribution of wealth that so many democrats seem to favor. The income of the wealth from the middle income high cost blue states is being redistributed to the middle income low cost red states.

We can also thank the alternative minimum tax for the increasing burden on the middle class.
Alternative Minimum Tax 101

If people in the blue states actually voted for their own best interests, they would fight to repeal the alternative minimum tax, and do away with a progressive tax structure. It is also ironic that those who live in red states, and benefit from the progressive tax structure tend to fight against it.

Nerv14 · 07-31-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjdsr

I don't know what the statistics are on this, but I know a good deal of wealthy people who are democrat.

Yes, the inner cities have large amounts of poor people. Of course they are going to vote democrat, because they want to get their entitlements.

The cities also have affluent suburbs, whose residents make good money.
The income taxes are higher in the blue states, and those who face the biggest burden of tax increases are usually in the inner suburbs surrounding the cities of the blue states.

TFM brought up California. They are a high tax, high cost of living state. They don't get as much back as what they put in. This is a perfect example of the redistribution of wealth that so many democrats seem to favor. The income of the wealth from the middle income high cost blue states is being redistributed to the middle income low cost red states.

We can also thank the alternative minimum tax for the increasing burden on the middle class.
Alternative Minimum Tax 101

If people in the blue states actually voted for their own best interests, they would fight to repeal the alternative minimum tax, and do away with a progressive tax structure. It is also ironic that those who live in red states, and benefit from the progressive tax structure tend to fight against it.

Firstly, I agree that we should get rid welfare in the federal government and its added taxes, but I still support a progressive income tax, if we are going to have an income tax at all...

But I found a source that says that there are more wealthy and upper middle class republicans then democrats.

Prairie Weather: Who's ahead? GOP or Dems?

Quote:

Upper Income Quintile (Annual household income above approx. $92,000, in 2005 dollars): In 2005, the GOP edge over Democrats among people in this income bracket is 38%-27% (with the remainder unaffiliated with either major party); back in 1992, the GOP edge was nearly identical, 37%-26%.
Upper Middle Income Quintile (Annual household income of approx. $58,000 to $92,000): The Republicans have a small edge over Democrats among all people in this bracket, 36%-31%, and a larger edge among whites, 40%-27%. Back in 1992, the GOP's margins were smaller among all people (32%-29%) and among whites (34%-26%).

I think that makes sense because it is just people voting on their own self interest.

However, I looked at the rest of the income levels and it says that Republlicans have the largest lead in lower-middle class, but Democrats have a large lead in the lower classes. That partially harms my argument, but the richest people still seem to be Republicans.

liberalman · 07-31-2008, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

Ah but it's worst than that. A bill was introduced to stop automatic pay raises for Members of Congress in any year that follows a budget deficit. It gives a real incentive for them to follow "Pay as you Go" budgeting.

A great bill that would have truly held Congress responsible for their actions, balance the budget or no raise next year. We all have performance evaluations at our work (not me I'm retired) if we don't perform our jobs as expected NO RAISE. Why should they get automatic raises no matter how poorly they do their jobs. That's likely why they DO their jobs so poorly. Real meaningful reform kicked to the curb in committee, never to see the light of day again.

Not really all that effective given that they seem to make more money off of "gifts" and lobbying after they leave office. As to the exclusion of SS and medicare it does seem a tad shady but if you balance the rest of the budget that should free up more money for those programs.....in theory.