Comments on: Faith-based budgeting

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:40:02 +0000

Government’s role from an economic perspective is to use its power, given to it by its people, to create and enforce laws so that individuals can use their talents to the fullest to create a thriving society.

yes, it’s simplistic.

The Constitution vests in Congress the power:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States . . .To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce . . .

Post offices and roads are only the begining. The Constitution grants the power:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The Constiution grants Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The jewel in the crown, the ribbon on the fasces, of progressive government is the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the people all powers not prohibiited to them, and thereby guarantees their right to government of the people by the people and for the people.

In other words, the proper role of government is pretty much whatever the people say.

What’s Obama’s .6% stake in publicly traded equities? Government at various times owned 99% of the land mass.

Report comment to moderator

By: montyfisherwoof

montyfisherwoof — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:57:42 +0000

Harris I think I agree 100 per cent. As I see it :
Scissors cut paper; Paper covers rock; Rock crushes lizard
Lizard poisons Spock; Spock smashes scissors; Scissors decapitate Lizard ; Lizard eats paper; Paper disproves Spock ; Spock vaporizes Rock and as it usually does Rock crushes scissors. Have I got that right?

Report comment to moderator

By: Harris

Harris — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:32:59 +0000

All budget grumpiness aside, some of the budget situations are the result of previous choices, not only about spending but also about taxation. Sometimes governments and voters make choices that later on leave the State hamstrung in how it must deal with a budget crisis.

I would point out, that for many states the decisions are not about ceding areas that private business can handle better, but rather meeting the present needs: who pays for prisons? for the schools? for the medicare? pensions? There are a obligations that a State can only walk away from with great difficulty. What is more, the pressure to balance the budget can lead to short term decision making at the expense of long-term savings (so one underfunds preventive care thereby increasing demand for emergency care; or refuse to raise taxes on gasoline and thereby prevent the state from tapping available money for road repairs).

At the state level, these are more the decisions you face. In this, the Hayek quote, useful as it is, can be misleading because of the limited autonomy of state governments.

Report comment to moderator

By: montyfisherwoof

montyfisherwoof — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:26:11 +0000

California did not vote down spending cuts. They voted down a fake ’spending cap’ that would have extended for two extra years a tax hike that was the largest tax increase in the history of the state.
The whole of the government of California is corrupt. Democrats spending all the money they can giving it to friends and cronies. Republicans saying they are against raising taxes that then voting to raise them. A governor who is a consummate “Marie Antoinette.”
For California the solution is simple. Fire most of the government. Adopt the Texas model of having the legislature only meet for a short time each year. And then fire all of the school employees. Principals, teachers, ‘administrators’ and janitors. Sell all of the schools. And then let people home school their kids. The parents faced with the horrible agony of teaching their own kids would quickly find free markets solutions.

Report comment to moderator

By: NJLawyer

NJLawyer — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:12:45 +0000

Well, in NJ, the place to start is with the politicians and their pension plans. The characters here get a pension for each one of their little part-time positions. The taxpayers pay some of them well over a $100,000. Our legislators have OTHER jobs that are giving them pensions. It’s despicable. They’re a lot like Congress.

So, my answer is the “thou shalt not steal” approach.

Report comment to moderator

By: StuBob

StuBob — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:03:36 +0000

First, there was a Theocracy. Then, because the people pretty much demanded it, He gave them a monarchy. We are told several times to submit to kings and “those in authority.” Much as I like free-market capitalism, I’ve never seen it as THE Biblically mandated societal model.

Report comment to moderator

By: KI

KI — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:33:50 +0000

Spending our own money is difficult. Spending other people’s money doesn’t take near the effort. There just is not the incentive to be frugal. That is even more true, the further the source of the income from the spenders. It is the most true of the federal government simply because everyone wants their piece of the pie, with someone else paying more than them. It becomes the reality that there is simply no incentive to not spend, when you know someone else will take that same money and use it.

Report comment to moderator

By: Sawgunner

Sawgunner — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:35:31 +0000

Cable TV or digital antenna, paper or plastic, stocks or bonds, pickup or car, Ginger or MaryAnn.. life is filled with choices you would never entrust politicians to make!

Comments on: Faith-based budgeting

By: Scroop Moth

By: montyfisherwoof

By: Harris

By: montyfisherwoof

By: NJLawyer

By: StuBob

By: KI

By: Sawgunner

By: Random Name