Excellent points, I guess we can agree on somethings
[QUOTE=Dickhead;427997]I'm kind of surprised there is not more focus on Congress vs. The presidential administration as far as the debt goes. Congress is the one with the final say on the budget.[/quote]The House is the key spending organ of the US govt, however, leadership, or the lack thereof, by the CIC dictates the pace. You shouldn't have any problem finding a myriad of my posts criticizing Bush for being a profligate spender and proposing that we return to a citizen, part-time legislature.
[quote=]I wonder if four year Congressional terms might be cheaper and also reduce the temptation of first-term legislators to immediately introduce pork legislation to ensure re-election.[/quote]You're right on as to the origins of one of the key causes of this problem (I. E. Members of Congress see your tax dollars as political contributions to their re-election campaigns). Along those same lines, I believe that no congress should be able to spend beyond it's tenure (I. E. They can't commit to spending that isn't fully paid for within 24 months) without super majorities of both houses.
[quote=]I'd like to focus a bit more on the QUALITY of government spending.[/quote]Therein lies another key element, QUALITY is a very qualitative (subjective) measure. I think that federal spending should be limited to: 1) protecting the republic and her people. 2) providing key services that "it" (the federal government) can demonstrably do better than the private sector, and 3) assisting those who truly can't provide for themselves and private organizations that support these people.
We are an advanced, just society and have a moral obligation to care for those that can't care for themselves. However, the definition of not being able to care for oneself has been a moving target for nearly 100 years. If not for the selfish, immoral behavior of legions of elected officials, over that period of time, we would be an even wealthier country with the resources to do more for the weaker members of society.
The determination of the "quality" of spending is very important. I am no Romney fanboy but, the only candidate that I have heard driving home that point, during the last 20+ years, is Romney.
[quote=]For sure that is a hard thing to measure but what if we cut the number of legislators in half?[/quote]No need to change their numbers. You'd be more likely to get a Constitutional Amendment ensuring partial-birth abortions than you would to reduce the ranks of congress. I say, send the f*ckers home by making them part-time (I. E. They can't afford to feed themselves and their families off of their congressional pay) so that they will have to go home and work.
[quote=]That would not change the power balance between the House and Senate in any terms other than empire building terms.[/quote]It isn't the ratio of reps to sens rather, it is the ratio of citizen to congress member combined with the aggregation of power amongst and even smaller core of the Ruling Class. It is a bit of a cluster f*ck with 435 and 100 house and senate members, respectively but, look at the power wielded by the leaders and chairmen. Imagine if that power was concentrated across half those numbers. The best thing for us (and US) is inefficiency and dysfunction at the congressional level with discord between the congressional majorities and the White House (you know, gridlock). That is, of course, to say that we want gridlock after we have fiscal conservatives in charge of the White House, House and Senate with majorities sufficient to gut the federal budget.
[quote=]Save a lot of money that way. I agree with Romney that multiple government agencies could be eliminated, or at least consolidated.[/quote]Check out the Obama administration report on the inefficiency of spending (mainly listing duplicative federal programs) , circa early 2009. While Obama had his administration try to cut down on paperclip purchases of Staples, it didn't raise a red pen to any of the duplication.
[quote=]I would start with the whole FBI CIA Homeland Security cluster fuck.[/quote]I rank the likelihood of accomplishing that right below the likelihood of reducing the number of congressional members. Intelligence and related organizations metastasize like rabbits multiply. This is exacerbated by the legal and feudal lines that exist between the branches of government. Self-preservation within that snake pit encourages compartmentalization of information and communications in order to avoid prosecution (just look at Fast and Furious).
[quote=]In a global world I see no reason to separate the FBI and the CIA, in particular, and those fuckers gobble up a LOT of funds.[/quote]There is a very good reason for living with the additive cost structure of two organizations, onshore and offshore. From nearly the beginning, there was a realization that spying had to separate from both law enforcement and from domestic intelligence efforts. Man needs to know his limitations one of which is his general inability to process conflicts of interest in real-time concurrent with personal and national crises. If you don't like the Santa Clara PD spying on you with a drone, while you nude sunbathe, just imagine what a domestic KGB / GRU-type organization would do. Bringing those elements into an organization with domestic law enforcement powers is almost certainly in conflict with the perpetuation of the Declaration and the Constitution and the rights they imbue into each of us.
[quote=]That whole spook industry is a lot more information intensive and a lot less capital intensive than it once was, so let's capture the savings from that.[/quote]I have to disagree. The equipment and highly-skilled personnel are more expensive than ever. Further, we had so degraded our HUMINT, prior to 911, we were totally blindsided.
[quote=]The DEA can go, too. I would address hard drug smuggling through a more comprehensive and consolidated immigration and border control policy.[/quote]We do not have the desire, at the federal level, to control our borders. How could we possibly get to a comprehensive, consolidated immigration and border control policy? Why not declare the trans-border, illicit narcotics industry a clear and present danger to the national security of the US and have our military and intelligence communities deal with it? I think that had we brown-bagged Pablo Escobar and via extraordinary rendition took him to Diego Garcia for an informal interview, we would have learned a great deal about both his operations and the industry at large. Foreign nationals engaged in activities that are clearly deleterious to US national security are neither entitled to our constitutional rights nor do they deserve our compassion.
[quote=]You have the INS and the border patrol at odds at times. I do advocate evaluating everyone who wants to come into the country, one way or the other; it just stands to reason we want the most qualified immigrants we can get.[/QUOTE]We can't effectively do any of these things without fundamental torte reform and real accountability. A Mexican criminal gets shot in the ass by a border patrol agent, during the commission of a felony, and the agent ends up in jail. The federal government supplies Mexican drug cartels, some of the most vicious criminals on earth responsible for murdering as many as 20-30k people per year, with more than 2, 500 assault weapons and no one is held accountable. Would that make you, as an ICE or DEA agent more likely to seek out the bad guys or shuffle papers?
At the root of all these problems are the abdication of personal responsibility by the bad actors (congress, presidents, criminals, etc) and the long-term distortion of our social folkways and morays, which prevents our governments (local, state and federal) from properly enforcing our laws and holding the bad actors accountable. When a majority in the congress says no to all spending except that which is truly necessary, we'll know that we are on the right path. When elected officials forego the immoral trappings of incumbency relying upon the quality of their performance, we'll see that we have chosen wisely. When US Navy ships sink drug smuggling boats and the CIA subjects drug lords to rendition and waterboarding, we'll have an indication that change is coming. When Eric Holder is sitting in a jail cell for his wanton disregard for the law and his direct complicity in over 300 murders, we will start to regain some of our trust in government. However, none of this will start until we, the citizens, resolve ourselves to elect only those who have the moral fiber to follow this path.
