Drive stupid government spending.
This is why we need a House of Repeal, and a Sunset Amendment to the Constitution.
56 thoughts on “Outdated Laws”
Comments are closed.
Drive stupid government spending.
This is why we need a House of Repeal, and a Sunset Amendment to the Constitution.
Comments are closed.
Require agencies trusted with crafting regulations to publish it as a single book (1000 page max, 10 pt Times New Roman) and defend it before Congress. Frequently, because they sunset too.
The presumption that “ignorance is not a valid defense” is currently fairly ludicrous. Even lawyers can easily be stumped by “Which of these items are legal” and a box of machine parts.
The size of our budget isn’t driven by the $876/year Civil War survivors’ benefits, or any other spending caused by outdated laws. It’s driven by the big three: Defense, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.
People who don’t care about wasting a million dollars on cowboy poetry certainly aren’t going to care about eliminating waste from the big three areas either, Jim.
“cowboy poetry, for example” that is, lest you try to go off into the weeds and ignore my point.
Doesn’t matter…he will anyway.
The fact that Harry Reid USED that program to show how awful painful, and appalling, even the most minor of cut would be, will be lost upon him as well.
Cowboy poetry has become extremely popular in the last decade. The fact that Reid thinks it needs to be subsidized shows how out of touch he is.
Of course, the fraction of the budget that goes toward Defense spending has been a shrinking for decades, but facts won’t stop Grinning Jim from blaming the military.
fraction of the budget that goes toward Defense spending has been a shrinking for decades
Yes, since “decades” takes us back to the Cold War. But it’s grown since the late-90s, and is a bigger fraction of the budget than anything except Social Security and Medicare+Medicaid. In particular, it’s bigger than all discretionary spending put together.
Meanwhile, in the real world, military spending for everything not directly connected to the global war on terror has been declining.
The military space budget is expected to decline 22% this year alone. I can only imagine the outrcry if NASA suffered anything like that.
People who don’t care about wasting a million dollars on cowboy poetry
People who spend all their time on million dollar items aren’t going to have any time to spend on billion dollar items.
Aw, Jim, you never fail to disappoint.
The budget isn’t all big ticket items, it is a lot of small ones, and those millions add up, which is something you like to say when people point out that letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the top brackets wont have any significant impact on our deficits.
Now that we have the specific tax increase that Obama campaigned on, and a couple more, it is time for Obama to embrace the other part of a balanced approach and cut spending.
Of course the tax increase Obama campaigned on and claimed would solve all of our problems and was responsible for all of our problems, wont bring in the revenue Obama and the Democrats fantasized about and wont solve all our problems. So what are we blaming now that the Clinton tax rates are off the table, what administration do we have to go back to for the magic to really for reals happen this time?
I see you wrote “Social Security” up there. That’s outdated law. One of the many flaws in Social Security is that people live longer than they used to.
Because people live longer than they used to, their need for retirement income security increases. Social Security is more necessary today than it was when it was first enacted.
The other important change since SS was created is the decline of defined-benefit pensions. That also increases the need for retirement income security, since many people outlive their defined-contribution retirement funds. Again, the changes since 1933 suggest a greater need for SS, and argue for more generous SS benefits.
“Social Security is more necessary today than it was when it was first enacted. ”
Nonsense.
Given that people live longer, it’s entirely reasonable to expect them to WORK longer, and not mooch off the state for a couple decades. But I wouldn’t expect you to admit that.
Lots of people do work longer. But even then some individuals will end up living longer than they expected, and need the security that a guaranteed benefit program like SS provides.
And one thing that hasn’t changed Jim, is that SS was not intended to be a person’s retirement but instead to suppliment it and we have a party that is devoted to destroying the ability to save for your own retirement, build wealth over a lifetime, and pass anything on to your children that would make it easier for them. But only rich people have money in the market…
Jim did it ever occur to you that SS has created it’s own need? That because it exists, society has re-arranged itself so as to depend upon it?
Whereas if it was shut down after, say WWII was finished (and the economy boomed) that we wouldn’t need it?
I didn’t think so…………..
Suggest you give that serious thought, Jim. Because history shows that society adjusts itself to what *is* – in both good and bad ways.
Of course the Civil War survivor benefit was mentioned, not because it’s a budget buster, but as an illustration, to non-thinkers, of a law that is, unbelievably, still on the books.
And, of course, one *could* exercise a little initiative and expend a little energy moving the cursor over the link that describes this:
“The Davis–Bacon Act (DBA) requires the government to pay construction wages that average 22 percent above market rates. This shields unions from competition on federal construction projects. It will also add $10.9 billion to the deficit in 2011. ”
…not to mention grease the palms of the Union bosses……nothing like graft and corruption as a frosting to increased deficits.
Given the gargantuan size of Leviathan, it’s not hard to imagine that hundreds of billions a year could be saved.
In FACT, we have, from the very White House it’s own self:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/10/29/ceasing-checks-deceased
“Whether the budget is in surplus or in deficit, we cannot tolerate the wasting of taxpayer dollars – and there are few more egregious examples of waste than improper payments. These are payments made by the government to the wrong person, at the wrong time, or in the wrong amount, and last year, they totaled approximately $110 billion”
That’s a tenth of a trillion for you non-thinkers and kool-aid slurpers. How much is saved over 10 years is left as an exercise between pitchers of kool-aid.
And of course, more recent articles and OMB releases show nothing has been done about that $110B.
improper payments
My point exactly. Those improper payments are part of the Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid programs, not some outdated law. The solution is more and better auditing (i.e. more federal employees, computers, etc.), not fewer laws.
And my point is that all thinking people know that government is fat, inefficient, and graft laden. As Karl H said above – get rid of SS and all of that goes away.
The government is involved in things it has no business being involved in. We have to suffer the graft and inefficiency that exists in things the government *ought* to be involved in. Necessary evil.
SS was created for a condition that existed in the 30’s.
That condition no longer exists; the program should not exist – phase it out without inconveniencing present recipients.
my point is that all thinking people know that government is fat, inefficient, and graft laden
And yet the voters, particularly GOP voters, do not favor cutting SS or Medicare.
SS was created for a condition that existed in the 30′s.
That condition no longer exists;
No, but new conditions — longer life spans, higher medical expenses, stingier private pensions — make SS even more important. To adapt SS to changing conditions you would increase its benefits, not take them away.
the program should not exist – phase it out without inconveniencing present recipients
Where do you draw the line? Everyone who’s ever gotten a paycheck has paid SS taxes, and been promised benefits when they retire. How much political support do you think you can muster to break those promises?
“And yet the voters, particularly GOP voters, do not favor cutting SS”
More of those bogus polls eh?
I wrote:
“The program should not exist – phase it out without inconveniencing present recipients”
Jim surrenders with:
“Where do you draw the line? Everyone who’s ever gotten a paycheck has paid SS taxes, and been promised benefits when they retire. How much political support do you think you can muster to break those promises?”
Ah ok so NOW that’s your issue with ending SS. Before it was vitally needed but NOW it’s just that you haven’t the imagination to devise a reasonable way to end it equitably? All you can come up with is a strawman?
There are a zillion ways to end it equitably.
The simplest is:
For those who have not entered the work force? No SS taken out of their taxes and no SS payments to them.
For people already receiving SS checks? Change nothing.
That way the program shrinks to nothingness.
Quite simple. No unfairness.
You can even work out schemes for the people between those two endpoints:
For the people in the middle, work out a graduated scheme where they get their money back, or keep it in but no longer pay more into it (and get benefits commensurate to what they paid in). Allow them to keep what they paid into the system and get it back when they retire but they are not required to put any more into the system.
I know the concept of ending a governmental program grinds socialist-lib-dem brain gears but it really can be done.
And should be.
Stingier private pensions? I guess everything looks stingy in comparison to all expenses, real and invented, paid for life.
The solution is more and better auditing (i.e. more federal employees, computers, etc.), not fewer laws.
We’re up to 13 layers of “oversight” in some areas. Why do you think 14 will eliminate (a) more of the original problem area, –and– (b) more of the inefficiencies and losses incurred by all thirteen of the other layers of oversight?
Answer: Because more government is always better. It’s the correct answer on every test from high school up in curricula designed to make sheep.
more government is always better
No. People who believe that less government is always better make this strange projection, and assume that the people who disagree with them must believe the exact opposite.
I believe in more government if and only if it makes things better. In this case, it’s an easy test: if spending $1 on more auditing reduces improper payments by more than $1, we should do that. If spending $1 on more auditing reduces improper payments by $1 or less, we shouldn’t. Saving taxpayers’ money by reducing improper payments should be a no brainer, even if it means more government.
So tell us of specific times, Jim, when the Federal government spent more money on auditing, and saved more than it spent.
So…
You support massive government cuts. Good to have you on board.
But what really happens is that when the new auditing department doesn’t produce the desired savings, the department says the problem is that they don’t have enough funding, so they get a budget increase for poor performance.
Put another way, the problem is that the wife (who spends like a Kardasian) is blowing a fortune buying unnecessary things on her frequent shopping trips. When you raise your looming bankruptcy as in issue, her solution is to hire a couple of executive assistants to go shopping with her, to review and approve her purchases.
It’s driven by people that don’t care about the consequences past the next election.
One good reason for cleaning out old outdated laws is that it removes the ability of officials of either party to use obscure, outdated laws, to nail some political opponent.
Another is that it would make our legal code just that much more understandable.
Baghdad Jim read the part about driving goverment spending, and wondered “Hey, what’s wrong with that?” He’s nothing if not generous with other people’s money.
A reminder of how the federal budget breaks down:
21% Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP
20% Social Security
20% Defense and International Security Assistance
13% Safety Net Programs
7% Benefits for Veterans and Federal Retirees
6% Interest on Debt
3% Transportation Infrastructure
2% Education
2% Science and Medical Research
1% Non-security International
4% Other
Much of that “Other” may not cost much in terms of direct costs to the taxpayer, but it’s a regulatory drag on the economy of hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
Does $2 billion a year to Egypt fit in Other, or somewhere else? Because I’m thinking we could just zero THAT right out, along with a significant portion of the rest of the
graft</strike foreign aid we waste.Next up: corporate welfare, particularly including corn, sugar, and ethanol subsidies. Where do THOSE fit? (Let's ditch the raisin controls, too.)
Don't forget bunny inspectors.
I’m guessing that Egypt aid is split between Defense and International Security Assistance, and Non-security International.
Farm subsidies are in “Other”. Some farm subsidies (e.g. the ethanol mandate) and other corporate welfare don’t show up in the budget because the costs are paid directly by consumers in the form of higher prices.
regulatory drag on the economy
Indeed. When Congress wants to address a problem they often have to choose between spending money and issuing regulations. For example, they had to choose between expanding medical insurance coverage by simply providing it (i.e. Medicare for all), or by mandating that individuals and businesses buy it themselves (i.e. Obamacare). The regulatory approach is more complicated and can have greater system-wide costs, but the costs are less visible than government spending, and create less backlash than taxes.
The goal of simpler, more economically efficient policies is often in conflict with the goal of minimizing direct government spending. Once you’ve decided to do something about a problem, you might get a better policy outcome by being willing to spend more and regulate less.
Once you’ve decided to do something about a problem…
Well, then sometimes a government should decide NOT to do something about a problem, because it is not its proper role.
And its proper role is not just defined only by whatever slight majority thinks it should be this month, which changes next month. If the role of government should be expanded it should be done with constitutional changes, not 5 of 9 judges reinterpreting meanings of words. Reinterpreting words is actually against the notion of majority vote because the vote happened on a specific meaning of specific words. By changing the underlying meaning of a word, you are actually changing the meaning of the laws without the corresponding votes it would normally take to change the law, making laws and constitutions meaningless.
For example, “regulate commerce among the several states” originally meant to keep commerce “regular” or normalized or well-functioning, since the states were imposing trade barriers on each other. It didn’t mean the federal government should “make regulations about” in the modern sense, where the federal government reaches down to the personal level within a state, even if that person has not engaged in any activity that crosses state lines, and either prohibit activity (growing corn or marijuana) or require activity (Obamacare).
But, since we changed the definition of “regulate” (or maybe accepted a new imposed definition of regulate), we effectively changed the Constitution without the process it should take in Article V.
But, the leftists will argue “living Constitution” (whatever we want it to mean this month) and change meanings of words (“marriage”) so they can impose their will without convincing the required number of people it would normally take through Article V.
Reading that list, I see 54% unauthorized by the Constitution, much of that having a double penalty on the economy by enabling able bodied persons to remain idle.
Jim, referring to the defense budget, wrote:
But it’s grown since the late-90s, and is a bigger fraction of the budget than anything except Social Security and Medicare+Medicaid. In particular, it’s bigger than all discretionary spending put together
I’m unclear if you are suggesting that the fact that defense spending, the only listed category of spending that is a clear Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government, is larger than all the “discretionary” spending which is, by definition, optional is a good thing, or a bad thing.
Or are you suggesting that the fact that defense spending, the only listed category of spending that is a clear Constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government, is smaller than two programs which are entitlements that are NOT Constitutional responsibilities of the Federal Government, is a good thing, or a bad thing?
I’m suggesting that if you care about the size of the federal budget you should start with the big items, and defense is one of the big three.
As for the Constitution, it gives the people the power to elect Congress and the President, and it gives Congress the power to create programs like Social Security and Medicare. Carrying out the will of the people’s elected representatives, within the limits of the Constitution, is a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government. There is therefore no particular reason to consider spending on Social Security to be a priori more suspect than spending on defense. There’s certainly no Constitutional requirement that defense spending comprise a particular share of the budget, or of GDP.
If we quit spending so much money on old people I suspect the result won’t be nuclear missiles raining down on us or having to learn how to speak Canadian so we can read the dictates of the occupation government. At most they would just bitch more.
Every other country in the world spends much less on defense than we do, and I don’t see them being pummeled by nukes or invaded by Canada.
I think you meant to say, “Thanks America.”
Wodun is correct — “It is by Gondor’s blood that your lands are kept safe.” It’s much too late to argue that America cannot be the world’s policeman — it assumed that role after WWII when it sought to become its emperor.
OK, fine Jim. Let’s *compromise*, as the Democrats always say.
Let’s reduce all three at the same time.
Deal?
Here’s another compromise I could get behind. I’ll support repealing of drug laws against marijuana if liberals will support repealing of current gun control laws, such as the ones making it difficult/basically impossible for civilians to own machines guns.
Deal?
There is therefore no particular reason to consider spending on Social Security to be a priori more suspect than spending on defense.
Governments have special powers not available to citizens or collections of citizens.
Defense of the country is one of them unless you’re willing to go back to privately owned warships.
Making something from scratch that does Social Security’s stated goal “Provide for our elderly!” does not require specific governmental powers.
Bureaucracy is fundamentally “NP-Hard”. That is: Intrinsically less tractable as it increases.
Making something from scratch that does Social Security’s stated goal “Provide for our elderly!” does not require specific governmental powers.
Care to offer an existence proof?
401(k)s.
Then remove (or dramatically raise) the limitations on how much can be added. The only governmental involvement is of the strictly ordinary sense: Punishing theft and use of the court system.
If 401ks are too tough, there’s also a thing called an annuity.
But you’re laughing, because you didn’t mean “Retirement Plan”, you meant “Wealth Redistribution Plan”. And you’re right, mostly those function through the use of coercion.
“Care to offer an existence proof?”
Geez Jim don’t you give this *ANY* thought before replying? Was it so hard for you to come up with pensions or 401’s or 403B’s?
Breitbart had an article up about the gun industry and how it provides more jobs and makes more money than GM. Which was interesting but the part that struck me was how the entire economic activity of an entire industry like firearms production or a segment of one like GM was dwarfed by just a few days of government spending.
I am not certain that people who think that the scale of our spending isn’t a problem understand where that money comes from and the enormous challenges people and companies face creating it.
A bloated and inefficient government doesn’t drive a vibrant economy. A vibrant economy allows for a bloated and inefficient government. So, it doesn’t make sense that we have a party that views itself at war with consumewrs, businesses, and capitalism. It isn’t in the Democrats best intrests to destroy the very thing that allows them to have social welfare spending but they do it anyway.
Here’s a law that was outdated the moment it was signed:
From 2009 to 2013, the U.S. government has spent $1,188,382 on puppetry-related expenses. Some of the expenses include puppet shows for kids on educational topics. Others include puppet-based research. In 2010, the taxpayer-funded National Science Foundation awarded the University of Central Florida a $199,754 research grant for “Efficient Control and Transmission of Digital Puppetry.”
Same with this law:
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1122176&HistoricalAwards=false
National Science Foundation awarded a grant for $876,752 to the University of Iowa to study whether there is any benefit to sex among New Zealand mud snails and whether that explains why any organism has sex.
Note at the bottom of the grant abstract:
“Science outreach efforts will be directed towards support and expansion of the local Darwin Day civic group, which is dedicated to organizing events aimed at increasing public scientific awareness, comfort, and literacy, and their efforts to initiate a multi-pronged media consortium. ”
Or this one:
http://www.federalgrantswire.com/african-elephant-conservation.html
To the tune of $3.8 million…….
Or these:
“In 2012, the feds also laid out $200 million for a reality TV show in India in order to advertise U.S. cotton products.
Then there was the $30 million that went to help Pakistani Mango farmers.
We shouldn’t forget the celebrity chef show in Indonesia that was the happy recipient of $100,000, or the “Rockin’ the Kremlin” documentary that got $550,000, or the $702,558 project to bring TV to Vietnamese villages.”
Yes …. the Feds are using every dollar wisely.
No….there’s no waste or fraud or abuse that can be cut out before we furlough Air Traffic Controllers…..
(\sarc – for those of you who are sarcasm-challenged)
And then of course, there’s this:
IRS knowingly sends Billions in Fraudulent Refunds to Illegal Immigrants
” A WTHR-TV Indianapolis investigative report exposes a fraudulent scheme wherein the IRS is sending $4.2 billion per year to illegal immigrants as an “additional child tax credit” for children who don’t even live in the U.S.
Further, the IRS and Congress have been ignoring the scheme for years. The Inspector General’s office has repeatedly identified the problem in audit after audit. The IG, Russell George says, “The magnitude of the problem has grown exponentially,” but the IRS is doing nothing to stop it.
“It’s so easy it’s ridiculous,” the tax preparer whistleblower who exposed the fraud admits. Names are simply listed on the IRS form. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.” No questions asked…the check’s in the mail.”