next »

[IndeedProceed]

Here is Warren Buffet's 'plan' to end the deficit:

You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than 3 percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. Yeah. Yeah. Now you've got the incentives in the right place, right? So it's capable of being done. And they're trying to use the incentive, 'Now we're going to blow your brains out, America, you know, in terms of your debt worthiness over time,' and that's being used as a threat. A more effective threat would be just to say if you guys can't get it done, we'll get some other guys to get it down.

The problem with this, is that instead of balancing the needs of the country, it puts congress in tunnelvision to fix that one problem, and likely hurts everything else.

It might work in the short-term to get things on track, but it could really hurt the country longterm. 

Or to put it another way, anytime you tie a highly skilled position (which being a congressman or senator is) to firm metrics, all you do is create a situation where they will work to meet the metrics, often at the expense of doing a good job overall, and the organization suffers.

No bill left behind?

[hpantazo]

Here is Warren Buffet's 'plan' to end the deficit:

You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than 3 percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. Yeah. Yeah. Now you've got the incentives in the right place, right? So it's capable of being done. And they're trying to use the incentive, 'Now we're going to blow your brains out, America, you know, in terms of your debt worthiness over time,' and that's being used as a threat. A more effective threat would be just to say if you guys can't get it done, we'll get some other guys to get it down.

The problem with this, is that instead of balancing the needs of the country, it puts congress in tunnelvision to fix that one problem, and likely hurts everything else.

It might work in the short-term to get things on track, but it could really hurt the country longterm. 

Or to put it another way, anytime you tie a highly skilled position (which being a congressman or senator is) to firm metrics, all you do is create a situation where they will work to meet the metrics, often at the expense of doing a good job overall, and the organization suffers.

2 Term Limits with no metrics involved on job performance will solve this imo.

[Chris]

Here is Warren Buffet's 'plan' to end the deficit:

You just pass a law that says that any time there's a deficit of more than 3 percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. Yeah. Yeah. Now you've got the incentives in the right place, right? So it's capable of being done. And they're trying to use the incentive, 'Now we're going to blow your brains out, America, you know, in terms of your debt worthiness over time,' and that's being used as a threat. A more effective threat would be just to say if you guys can't get it done, we'll get some other guys to get it down.

The problem with this, is that instead of balancing the needs of the country, it puts congress in tunnelvision to fix that one problem, and likely hurts everything else.

It might work in the short-term to get things on track, but it could really hurt the country longterm. 

Or to put it another way, anytime you tie a highly skilled position (which being a congressman or senator is) to firm metrics, all you do is create a situation where they will work to meet the metrics, often at the expense of doing a good job overall, and the organization suffers.

2 Term Limits with no metrics involved on job performance will solve this imo.

While I agree that it will stop the scenario that I suggested from happening. I am not sure term limits will do too much to curb the politics in general.  I think most of these guys are still so entrenched in their parties, that you will still have them sticking hard to the party lines.

And when you institute term limits, then you have people looking towards their next job perhaps in the private sector, while they are still in congress/senate, possibly setting up other types of conflicts of interest. 

Its a no win proposition.  Politics is what it is.

[JSD]

Look for a “bipartisan” compromise in late December, with Republicans giving in to tax increases and settling for phony spending cuts that actually grow government, and Democrats caving on defense cuts in exchange for tax increases.  This is how the government has always grown: both sides will sacrifice their pro-liberty, small government stances in certain areas in order to grow the government where they prefer.

Liberty always loses in the 11th hour.

Ron Paul on December 3rd 2012

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2031&Itemid=69

[Interceptor]

Unexpectedly, there are 85 Keynesian Republicans in the House of Reps.

NPR had a guy on late last night that said very concisely and simply (paraphrased), "American politicians are in the same situation a lot of politicians around the world are in right now; if they do their job and initiate higher taxes and comprehensive meaningful spending cuts, they'll get voted out of office."

Voted out of office for tanking the economy for no good reason. We've seen what happens when you jump onto the Austerity Train with both feet in the middle of a weak recovery: to nobody's great surprise, you go back into a recession. There's a reason why our tepid recovery is slowly plugging along, while the UK's was strangled to death in the crib.


I think that the Republicans continue to lose this battle every time that it comes up. I can't wait to see the debt limit shenanigans again, where Congress blames the administration for spending by Congress. I hope that whoever the new Treasury Secretary is, will be less of a pushover than Geithner.

[LooseCannon]

It would probably help if Republicans completely abandoned the Hastert rule, the informal guideline used by Republicans (but not Democrats) that the House shall only be allowed to vote on bills that are supported by a majority of the majority party.

[Cman]

I think that the Republicans continue to lose this battle every time that it comes up. I can't wait to see the debt limit shenanigans again, where Congress blames the administration for spending by Congress.

I think we'll see some real brinkmanship on the debt limit, with Obama basically telling the Republican controlled Congress to raise it or suffer the consequences.

[LB3533]

This fiscal cliff is a sham, a charade. It is another politically engineered piece of propaganda.

Washington does a fabulous job drawing the public's attention away from what is really going on.

Just out right and tax us like you want to and stop giving all the back handed benefits to the rich.

[Interceptor]

I think we'll see some real brinkmanship on the debt limit, with Obama basically telling the Republican controlled Congress to raise it or suffer the consequences.

He should be prepared to fight over the 14th amendment if he has to. The hostage negotiations are getting a little old.