Obamacare

New Year's Resolution Wish List for Reforming Big Government

Repeal Obamacare, deregulate, and drain the swamp.

|

Trump
DAN ANDERSON/EPA/Newscom

The new year is a time to make resolutions to improve your life over the next 12 months. This time around, there's a new boss in the White House and the Republicans have control of Congress. So though I usually don't feel I can realistically add big sweeping changes to my list—a tactic often likelier to yield failure and frustration than success—I am going to dream a little and call for boldness on top of no-brainer reforms.

— Reform the corporate income tax. It's been a few decades since Congress engaged in real tax reform. As a result, the corporate income tax rate is the highest of all developed nations—35 percent at the federal level alone. We also have a worldwide tax system, which means that if it weren't for an ability to defer paying taxes at the U.S. rate as long as overseas income stays abroad, corporations would be subjected to Uncle Sam's insatiable appetite no matter where they make money.

An easy fix would be to lower the rate as much as possible and move to an origin-based territorial regime—all paid for by cutting spending and reforming entitlements. (I told you I would dare to dream.)

— Repeal the Affordable Care Act. From the "if you like your plan, you can keep it" fiasco to soaring Medicaid costs to exponentially rising premiums, Obamacare needs to go. Friends and foes of the repeal believe that the reconciliation process would be a logical pathway to achieving this goal. After the repeal, Republicans would have an opportunity to replace Obamacare with a plan that is much closer to a real market solution. I certainly hope they would try to use health savings accounts rather than tax credits, which would have a mandate problem and could be described as "Obamacare Light."

Though the health insurance system is important, lawmakers should not overlook another issue that's just as important, if not more so: how to unleash waves of disruptive innovation that can bring health care costs down and increase quality. To foster such change, we need to give health care providers and innovators wide leeway to innovate and experiment. This requires us to loosen the coercive grip of government agencies (Food and Drug Administration, I am thinking of you) and special interests.

Currently, our laws, regulations and institutions constantly get in the way of unleashing the kind of technological revolution that transformed other industries, such as information technology. In his "Fortress and Frontier in American Health Care" and other writings, my colleague Robert Graboyes makes a passionate case for permissionless innovation in health care. Lawmakers should listen to him.

— Deregulate. The burden of regulation on our personal and business lives has made us run sore for decades. Economists have documented how the large accumulation of regulations has serious impact on our economy. Economists John Dawson and John Seater estimated, for instance, that federal regulations from 1949 to 2005 caused the gross domestic product to be $38.8 trillion less in 2011 than it would have been. They figured that this loss amounted to $129,300 per person. Also, the World Bank found that a 10 percent increase in regulatory burden is associated with a loss of half a percentage point in the overall world economic growth rate. That's thousands of dollars in lower income per person.

But things have gotten worse since President Barack Obama took office. As documented by Diane Katz and James Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation, the unparalleled increase in regulatory burdens since 2009 brings the regulatory costs to an astonishing $108 billion a year. Imagine the incredible decline in economic freedom and individual liberty that resulted from this regulation spree.

— Drain the swamp by ending all subsidies to private businesses. Cronyism—the unhealthy marriage between the government and corporations—is the biggest threat to capitalism and free markets. However, it is also very corruptive and explains the lack of trust that people have in our government. Corporations have long used and abused their access to government officials to boost their profits with subsidies, tax breaks, and loans or to exclude their competitors. Such things as the Export-Import Bank of the United States, agricultural subsidies, and the ethanol mandate should be first on the list for Congress and the new president to terminate.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Libertarian-leaning Montana State Rep. Daniel Zolnikov is Thinking About Montana's One Federal House Seat

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ah you big dreamer! My dreams are always so big that they aren’t even plausible. Yours are at leats that, barely.

    1. I literally just woke up from a dream. In the dream, Nina Simone was singing her farewell concert, but she was old and didn’t know the lyrics to standards. I was offstage, and the stage manager was getting upset with me because I fluffed out the feathers on a boa, but it wasn’t even for Nina’s act. It was the SNL stage, and the boa was for a different production. At the climax of Nina’s performance, a group of drones, each drone wrapped in colored fabric, flew into the sky above the stage. The audience

      1. Started cheering and applauding. But the drones then formed into the figure of a 60 foot tall Frankenstein that flew in circles overhead for the remainder of the song. The audience was aghast. The stage manager was freaking out. I was laughing my ass off.

        1. Then I went across the street, and the drone operators were there and they were all excited, and then there was a mid century hotel lobby, and I was looking at the paneling because it was beautiful mahogany. And then I woke up.

          And checked out hnr.

          1. Something witty about eating beans before going to bed.

            1. I had chili for dinner last night. Weird.

          2. No pickles?

          3. So, a sex dream?

    2. Veronique’s dreams are Yuuuuuuge! Maybe she should run for Prez?

  2. Add in: Cut every federal budget by 50%+
    eliminate most federal agencies.

    Lower personal income tax and simplify tax code to flat tax or a few pages of rules.

  3. Hit the intellectual bodyguard of the Left where it hurts the most: eliminate all Federal funding to higher education.

    1. ^^^^THIS^^^^

      Killing the indoctrination machine would be about one of the best things that could happen.

  4. Nah, let’s instead spend a crap-ton of money on infrastructure and nukes. While we’re at it, kick free trade in the nads. That should work.

  5. Repeal the Affordable Care Act

    You just killed 8% of shriek’s soul.

    1. CNN just said “some” are already calling it “Trumpcare”. And amazingly, they’re not even lying.

  6. We have tax system that penalizes US companies from bringing the money they make from selling goods abroad back to the US. It is difficult to fully fathom how insane that is. If a company makes money selling goods and services overseas and invests that money overseas, it doesn’t pay any US taxes. If, however, it takes that money back and invests it in the US, it has to pay the 35% US corporate taxes on it. Our government ensures that the US economy cannot benefit from profits made selling goods and services overseas. It is just fucking mind boggling.

    1. so what you’re saying is we need to tax corporations on money they make overseas?

      /idiot prog

    2. Remember when Obumbles earnestly said “Taxes aren’t about revenue. Taxes are about fairness.”

      Don’t try to figure it out.

      1. See: amsoc’s constant whining about top marginal income tax rates. Despite the fact that the U.S. Government made far less revenue proportionally from that bracket when the rates were much higher, despite the fact that U.S. Government tax revenue is at an all time high no matter how you (reasonably) adjust it, despite the fact that even a 100% tax on that bracket would not close the deficit never mind the debt increase, he insists that the rates must be raised. Revenue is a red herring; the real goal is punishment.

        “He would rather the poor be poorer as long as the rich are less rich”

  7. An easy fix would be to lower the rate as much as possible and move to an origin-based territorial regime?all paid for by cutting spending and reforming entitlements.

    For a lady Frenchman, you sure don’t know how to keep les gens happy and soft.

    1. You know who else was mean to French people?

      1. General Braddock and Col. Washington?

        1. You beat me to it, creech.

        2. de Jumonville had it coming.

      2. Julius Caesar?

    2. DeRugy still manages to be ill informed even when she is right. There is no need to pay for these “tax cuts” since the taxes don’t collect much or really any money. These taxes just cause corporations to leave their profits overseas to avoid them. All ending them would do would cause a flood of capital back into the US. Currently the federal government is getting 35% of nothing and in return keeping hundreds of billions of dollars in capital outside of the country. The growth effects of the returning capital would more than make up for any loss in income assuming there even is any.

      1. First, the phrase ‘pay for tax cuts’ enrages me.

        Second, no one really knows how much American capital is parked overseas. I have heard numbers as high as 2 T.

        1. That enrages me too. And a whole lot of people like DeRugy who should know better use it. Fuck you. Tax cuts are never “paid for” because the government doesn’t own all the money.

          1. “Pay for tax breaks” makes me think of Old Bolshevik double-speak.

            Hate it.

      2. The growth effects of the returning capital would more than make up for any loss in income assuming there even is any.

        Something you would think a Mercatus Center economist would understand. Saying we have to “pay for the tax cuts” is something you’d expect from NYT columnist Paul Krugman not from someone who should be well versed in Bastiat.

      3. All ending them would do would cause a flood of capital back into the US.
        Like it did in 2004. 92% went to executive bonuses, and seeing how profitable the scheme was, they outsourced more jobs.

        So, no problems on the tax breaks for repatriating profits, that is fine. Just stop pretending that it is going to go towards job creation via domestic growth.

  8. I’m sure the GOP would rather not do any of those things. No doubt they have some pointless horseshit they would rather dwell on.

    1. I think they are actually going to fix this one. It is such a no brainer even the Republicans can figure it out.

  9. DeRugy has to know that cutting these taxes will not reduce revenue in any significant way. Yet, she still throws out the line about paying for it by cutting entitlements. I have noticed that a lot of the internationalist right seem to have suddenly gotten the “we must cut entitlements now religion” post election. They always support reforming entitlements but it was never quite a fetish such that it must be mentioned in every context possible. After Trump won the election, it has become such a fetish. I think DeRugy and company want to cut entitlements not just because it is necessary but for the added benefit of punishing the evil stupid electorate for not doing what they were told and electing Hillary. The voters must be punished for the sin of not listening to their superiors.

    1. You’re in yelling at clouds territory.

      1. It is just odd. One of the major selling points to stopping this idiocy is that the taxes don’t collect any money and likely cost the government money. Yet, DeRugy claims “they can be paid for by reforming entitlements”. WTF? Reforming entitlements would entail saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Her saying that these tax cuts can be paid for by reforming entitlements is like me saying I can pay for my trip to the grocery store this week by refinancing my house.

        Why does she make such an absurd argument when there is an obvious argument available namely that the eliminating these taxes will make the government money?

        1. Maybe she secretly wants entitlement reform and is couching it in the “pay for tax cuts” phrasing so popular with the kids these days.

          1. That is my thought. I just thing she wants entitlement reform partially because she wants to see the evil bitter clingers suffer.

          2. No, she’s mad about Hillary losing. That’s the only reason. I heard it from John.

            1. If there is another reason, do tell Playa. Why is she failing to make the obvious argument and instead making such an unnecessary and stupid one?

              If she doesn’t like people assuming the worst about her motives, she should learn to make smarter arguments. What else is there to say?

              1. She’s trying to live up to the democrat stereotype of republicans wanting to steal people’s social security and medicare.

                Her next column will be about paying for tax cuts for the rich by letting people die in the streets.

  10. The left would rather burn down the entire country than see the financial and historical burdens they have placed on the country be rolled back. If you believe the obstructionism, lies, and childish moves to cause political pain of the last few weeks has been bad, you are going to get bowled over when they start undermining everything in the hopes of preventing their system, as failed as it is, from being done away with.

    The left will never allow anyone to put something that would actually work, even if marginally better than what we have today (which isn’t too hard to do all things considered), in place, because it is the thing they fear most: real proof that the shit they believe in and do doesn’t work. They learned that lesson with Reagan. Then again, I would be really surprised that the establishment republican would want to make changes that would rock the existing system, since they have profited from it as well.

    Keeping my fingers crossed that we end up with less regulation and less government.

  11. Here’s my wish list:

    (1) Go through the Federal Register with a chainsaw. Cut regulation back as far as legally possible. Don’t think he needs Congress for this.

    (2) Close many agency offices in DC. Since its impossible to fire civil servants, send them home on indefinite paid leave. Let them rot there. Maybe later people will get sick of paying them to do nothing.

    (3) Relocate what’s left of the agencies to various cities around the country. Break up the Imperial Capitol accretion of agencies, lobbyists, apparatchiks, etc.

    (4) Repeal the Internal Revenue Code in its entirety and pass a new one. If I really had my druthers, get rid of payroll withholding except to fund entitlements, have one payroll tax that resets every year to fund all the entitlements for that year (SocSec, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) in their entirety. As the cost off entitlements goes up, so do the taxes – only way to get an honest discussion going, IMO.

    1. You are not going to get that. But, what you can get is reforming the worst parts of the tax code. I would get rid of all taxes on foreign income. I would eliminate corporate taxes altogether. Tax dividends and personal income. But corporate profits are a creature of accounting. They only “exist” insofar as someone getting the money as personal income in the form of a salary or dividends, which are. It is idiotic and pointless to tax them twice.

      Then I would eliminate taxes on savings and capital gains up to say 20% of your income. Then I would at least start to phase out the home mortgage deduction. Lastly, I would tax all income regardless of how it is made at the same rate. Lets stop penalizing people for saving and investing and encouraging people to spend. Tax it all the same with the exemption I give above so that people have a reason to save and let the economy sort it out.

      That would be a start and one that you might be able to get through Congress.

      1. what you can get is reforming the worst parts of the tax code.

        Hence, my call to repeal it in its entirety and replace it with a new one. Its the only way to root out all the crony deals, subsidies, and social engineering.

        I think you could sell my entitlement reform as making them sustainable, locking in enough revenue to pay for them every year.

        I’m not sure how much the Prez can do without Congress to cut the CFR, put civil servants on indefinite paid leave, and relocate agency offices, but I bet its a lot. Did I mention that, as federal office buildings are emptied in DC etc., they would be demolished and replaced with parks and green space?

        1. You can do a lot to cut the CFR. Regulatory law makes it harder than just a stroke of a pen. But it is not impossible. And you don’t want to put those employees on leave. You just need to put them to work repealing the regulations they have spent the last 50 or so years writing. The process of undoing them is only slightly less intensive than the process for writing them. Absent Congressional repeal, unwinding the CFR will be a big job, though hardly an impossible one.

          And not all the tax code is equally bad. There are parts that are worse than others.

          1. The process of undoing them is only slightly less intensive than the process for writing them.

            How so? I could deal with the CFR on HIPAA privacy and security in an afternoon, leaving in the bare minimum “required” by the statute.

            If you turn the job of eliminating regulations over to the civil service which depends on them for a paycheck, you aren’t going to get much reduction in regulations.

            1. Because you can’t revoke a regulation without going through the regulatory process and justifying why you are doing it. There is an entire field of law known as regulatory law dealing with how the government creates and revokes regulation. You can only do it with a stroke of a pen by having Congress pass a law saying it is revoked.

              1. Because you can’t revoke a regulation without going through the regulatory process and justifying why you are doing it.

                Indeed. However, if Obama can “expedite” his changes to the CFR, then so can Trump. It does take a bit more care than grabbing a chainsaw, though. You have to justify the arguments behind the changes couched in the language of the statute. You can’t just say “this regulation is killing jobs” if the statute says nothing about jobs. But you may be able to say that the cost of the regulation exceeds the benefit or something like that.

                1. Kbolino,

                  You are exactly right. It is not impossible or even that hard. it just takes some time and determination. But there is more to it than just grabbing a chainsaw.

    2. #3 is especially important.

      Relocate the EPA to someplace like Minot, North Dakota, the FCC to Eagle Butte, South Dakota, the SEC to Loafers Glory, North Carolina, the Department of Energy to the Hanford Site, Washington, and the IRS to Hell, Michigan.

      There is no good reason why these agencies should be located in the most expensive counties in the US.

  12. Wanna dream? Outlaw public sector unions.

  13. Repeal the Affordable Care Act. From the “if you like your plan, you can keep it” fiasco to soaring Medicaid costs to exponentially rising premiums. (emphasis mine)

    Let’s agree not to use this word in this manner. They’re skyrocketing, but definitely not at an exponential rate. It makes us all sound like hyperbolic asses and gives supporters of that disastrous legislation an out to ignore anything else we have to say about it. At that word you can almost hear the pop of fingers into ears.

    1. That is a very good point. Exponentially and literally are probably the two most misused words in the language.

    2. They’re skyrocketing, but definitely not at an exponential rate.

      Depends on the exponent. If they were rising at X**-1, or X**0 that might be OK.

    3. I just compared the HSA-qualified policy rates on the ObamaCare “MarketPlace” and compared versus what I paid in 2012 and 2013 for a pre-ObamaCare HSA-qualified rates.

      Using the same ages as we were in 2012 for the 2017 policy rates, the ObamaCare rates are 85% higher than the pre-ObamaCare rates.

      Deductibles and maximums are very much the same since policies are HSA-qualified. The only significant difference is that the pre-ObamaCare policy was a high-quality PPO policy whereas the ObamaCare policy is an inferior HMO policy. ObamaCare offers no PPO policies where I live. If they did, the difference in rates would easily exceed 100%.

      Another difference is that my sons and I would get free birth control pills. So, there’s that.

    4. I’d rather we all become less innumerate. As long as something is increasing at a rate proportional to its basis, that IS exponential. Compounding is exponential. Costs would be increasing linearly if they were simply increasing at a fixed rate. They’re not.

  14. Though the health insurance system is important…

    I like to imagine that de Rugy’s diary is a fiery series of diatribes, filled with Gallic passion, ire and a secret talent for swearing. And in that diary, several entries per year and all of December hate on health insurance.

    1. The hate directed towards health insurance is pretty dumb. Health costs are very difficult to account for. They are impossible to predict and thus impossible to plan for and have the potential of ruining you. Insurance is the only way you can fix them to any degree and be able to plan and account for them properly. Health insurance is a completely rational and proper way for the market to deal with the problem of health care costs.

      1. It’s super handy to have an infallible expert on federal law, health insurance, body armor and several flavors of engineering around to settle these little confusions when they pop up.

        1. If I am wrong, say why. If you can’t, then shut up and listen. Your call.

          1. Make a joke, response pontificates. Make another, response escalates to DefCon Douche.

            Yep. This feels like home.

      2. The hate directed towards health insurance is pretty dumb.

        So called Health Insurance in the US is a semi-socialized system that is a half way house to a fully socialize system.

        Health insurance as a financial product instead of a delivery system would be fine, but that isn’t what the US has had for many decades.

      3. I agree to some extent. However, too many people conflate health INSURANCE and health CARE. Insurance is for (to your point) difficult to predict, large, events. The cost of routine care, OTOH, is more predictable and most people can save for through HSAs and the like. (for example, you can save/plan for children/births, know years in advance of getting braces for kids/adults, and schedule your regular check-ups, etc. All fairly predictable costs). High deductible, catastrophic plans are great for this reason. It’s the “insured” routine CARE that drives costs up because so few people are making price-based decisions.

        1. High deductible, catastrophic plans are great for this reason. It’s the “insured” routine CARE that drives costs up because so few people are making price-based decisions.

          Those people are paying for those costs in the form of higher insurance rates. You can have your insurance cover anything you want. You just have to pay for it. Catastrophic plans make sense for some people they don’t make sense for others. It amazes me how Libertarians are so quick to decide what insurance people need rather than letting them decide.

          1. I think the simple answer is because most of us don’t see any need to have a payment plan for routine and predictable expenses. Yes, some people do, and they should be free to have it. But right now, we are all, practically speaking, forced to have it. This was true before the ACA thanks to HMO but it has only gotten worse. I don’t need my insurance to pay for IVF never mind regular checkups. Yes, some people do want that. I don’t and neither do a lot of other people. My rates shouldn’t be set for things I have no interest in paying for.

            1. NO they shouldn’t. The problem is the government sticking its nose in things and telling you what your insurance must cover. People are risk adverse. Also, catastrophic plans are not a panacea. If you are unlucky enough to get a prolonged illness, your catastrophic plan may not do you a damn bit of good and you can still end up in a massive hole. Moreover, for most people a fifty or a hundred thousand dollar expense is just as impossible to pay for as a million dollar expense. So a catastrophic plan really doesn’t eliminate much risk for such people.

              My point is that people shouldn’t pretend that health insurance would go away or everyone would be buying bare bones catastrophic plans if only the government would get out of the way. That is just not true. Really good health insurance makes sense for a lot of people. And those people are and would be willing to pay for such.

              1. Also, catastrophic plans are not a panacea.

                What needs to be available, in addition to catastrophic coverage, are HSAs. And not in the joke form we have today. I mean, HSAs with very high balance limits (or better yet, none at all) and with no money getting stolen from the account at the end of the year because you didn’t “use” it fast enough. That covers a lot of what people can plan for.

                If you are unlucky enough to get a prolonged illness, your catastrophic plan may not do you a damn bit of good and you can still end up in a massive hole.

                The problem is that there is no plan that can provide e.g. $100,000 of yearly benefit for $10,000 in yearly premiums without soaking at least 9 other people for no appreciable benefit on their part. Insurance can spread costs around but every person who regularly gains a benefit from it has to be matched by at least one other person who regularly gains no or little benefit from it. To make such a plan sustainable, there has to be a balancing act. People in the latter category have to have an incentive to keep paying and people in the former category have to face limits on what is covered and to what amount.

                That is a reality that no amount of wishful thinking can change.

            2. I think the simple answer is because most of us don’t see any need to have a payment plan for routine and predictable expenses. Yes, some people do,

              Nobody needs insurance for routine and predictable expenses, but a bunch of people want it.

              If there was a free market, I could buy a high-deductible policy and others could buy a no-deductible policy to match their extended warranty plans.

              Even with ObamaCare, though, I can buy a high-deductible policy. The only problem is that the policy rate I pay is marked up to subsidize everybody else in my community-rated risk pool. I’m right at 400% of poverty line, so any ObamaCare Silver policy has significant deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums. However, for lower-income subscribers, an identical ObamaCare Silver number has much, much lower deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums.

              It is well-known that taxpayers generally pay subsidies to ObamaCare subscribers with incomes less than 400%.

              What is less well-known is that ObamaCare subscribers who earn over 250% of poverty line pay a premium that further subsidizes lower-income ObamaCare subscribers in the form of lower deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums.

              1. Cato,

                If they want it, they need it. It is really that simple. People are always going to want to insure against risk to greater extent than the math says they should. And that makes perfect sense. There is more to a decision than money. Say for example, you told me that I had a one in a thousand chance of incurring some enormous misfortune that would cost me a million dollars this year. By strict math, I should be willing to pay about $105, which is the cost of the risk plus a five percent return on your investment) for an insurance policy against this misfortune. The reality is that because I have a lot to lose and going bankrupt would be an enormously emotional and harmful event for me, I am going to be willing to pay much more than $105 for such insurance.

                The thing that a lot of economists don’t get about insurance is that I am not buying the coverage. I am buying the peace of mind of not having to worry about the risk. And I am buying it with money whose marginal value varies with how much money I have. So for me $500 isn’t that much money and the peace of mind that comes with not worrying about going bankrupt this year having debts I will never pay because of this misfortune is much more valuable than the $500. So, I would quite rationally pay more than the math says I should for such insurance.

                Economist are generally nerds who don’t understand psychology and don’t get that.

      4. Health costs are very difficult to account for. They are impossible to predict

        Maybe the hospitals and doctors should publish price lists.

        Nah, what business would ever do that?

        1. Yeah because knowing the price of surgery is going to tell me my likelihood of needing it in the future.

          Are you fucking retarded?

          1. In a lot of cases, you already know the likelihood to a rough estimate. You can save and plan. Don’t buy into the leftist fallacy that nobody can plan for things.

            1. you already know the likelihood to a rough estimate

              Rough estimate is another way of saying I don’t know. yeah, I can save and hope and take the risk that my rough estimate is correct. That is true. But that fact doesn’t make buying insurance and fixing my cost and eliminating the risk any less sensible.

          2. I mean shit, if insurance companies can plan for it, then so can I. What insurance companies offer is diffusion of costs across a pool of risk. I can’t do that all by myself. But I can still gather information and make preparations.

            1. Insurance companies succeed because they have risk pools. If I have a 100 people who have a 20% chance of needing a particular cost, I can sell insurance to those people and make money without taking any risk. That fact doesn’t in any way make it any easier for an individual to figure out his cost with any certainty.

              The whole point of insurance is to pool risk so that costs can be spread out and fixed.

              1. I get that. What I’m saying is that if I, as an individual, know that a certain procedure costs $10,000 and there is a relatively high likelihood that I will need/want to have that procedure in the next 10 years, then I can start saving for it now by putting away, say, $1000 each year into an HSA. If I don’t even know the price, or can’t pay it directly, then I have to depend on “insurance” to pay for it even if I had the means and wherewithal to plan for it. That is taking choices away from the individual, and is a recipe for long-term problems.

          3. No, John, “need” and cost are always related.

    2. “…de Rugy’s diary is a fiery series of diatribes, filled with Gallic passion, ire and a secret talent for swearing.”

      That is gold.

  15. Republican president with Republican Congreff.

    I predict massive increases in entitlement and defense spending, fighting the War on Drugs even harder, and big-government statism, Republican style, which isn’t really distinguishable from Leftard statism. Maybe more pink, soft, and oily Boomers telling my generation we need to man up and go shoot some sand niggers, as opposed to, I dunno, BHO. Maybe not, thought. I hope I am wrong.

  16. As opposed to BHO telling us we should do that, I mean.

  17. My wish list is to take their thumbs.

  18. A few modest proposals that would reap huge rewards:

    Eliminate baseline budgeting – it been a crock of shit since enacted in the 70s.

    Pass a new law that automatically sunsets all laws after some designated period of time.

    Civil Service reform – make it easier to fire bureaucrats for any reason, rule that any member of the bureaucracy that refuses to testify to Congress, or takes the 5th in doing so has resigned their position with a loss of their pension.

    Make all income including fines and civil penalties contributions to a general fund which will be spent at Congress’s discretion.

    1. Pass a new law that automatically sunsets all laws after some designated period of time.

      I don’t think one Congress can tie the hands of future Congresses, although I like the concept of the Prez saying, or maybe the Speaker, that no law will be brought up unless it has a built-in expiration date.

    2. I want term limits on civil overlords servants. Government should not be a “career” with the exception of uniformed personnel (who also need to tough love pension reform).

  19. All this fantasizing by establishment libertarians about what 500 politicians who we all know never do the right thing in Washington –same old same old.
    Has Ms Rugy ever read Irwin Schiff’s scholarly treatment of the income tax, “The Great Income Tax Hoax”? or Pete Hendricksen’s 2003 Classic, “Cracking the Code”? How about late Attorney Tommy Criers work, featured on the website “Truth Attack”? The lib/conservative establishment refuses to try to understand the best of TAX HONESTY and so keeps holding their dicks and wishing the Congress would fix what they do not understand.
    We do not understand the income tax not because the language in Title 26 is obtuse,(although it is) but because we have filled our heads with the myths of the tax that the establishment wants us to believe. There is an astounding lack of criticism about the 16th amendment, the tax codes, the history of the tax, etc. Entitlement reform? Ha, the Constitution and the tax laws themselves contain the best entitlement reform.
    Until we understand the income tax we cannot reform or abolish it. But the personal income tax is flat out unconstitutionally collected, and the lib/conservative establishment never, ever talks about it, or does anything about it. The Shame!
    see http://www.nontaxpayersforronpaul.blogspot.com

    1. You can call it unconstitutional all you want, but that’s not going to stop the IRS from collecting taxes. It will take the Congress and/or the Courts to affect change, and so far the latter have been completely uninterested in your line of argumentation.

  20. I like the idea of improving government efficiency (more benefit, less cost), but believe the most important thing we will need to do first is remove any ‘all or nothing’ pensions. All or nothing pensions begets seniority, which begets incompetence. Especially, in the military, nothing more frustrating then coming from the corporate world and being deployed with fellow officers who are complete rock heads. I haven’t heard Trump mention the word seniority, so merit will have to flourish in the private sector.

  21. This time next year I’d like to be reading how it was a terrible year for Washington lobbyists, how tens of thousands government bureaucrats are seeking work in the private sector, and how several government agencies are on the verge of being shut down. I can dream.

  22. Stating the obvious requires a PHd…?

  23. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away startad bringin in minimum $82 per-hr

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  24. Good stuff. But one never needs to “pay” for not stealing from taxpayers. One just stops doing it. Then the focus goes to exterminating excessive social spending.

  25. HAPPY NEW YEARS

    upto I looked at the paycheck saying $9861 , I accept that my father in law was like they say trully bringing in money in their spare time online. . there best friend haz done this less than 8 months and a short time ago repayed the dept on there appartment and bourt a great Citro?n 2CV . see at this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  26. I basically profitcloseto $6k-$8k every month doing an online job. For those of you who arepreparedto do easy at home jobs for 2h-5h each day at your house and earnvaluablepaycheck while doing it…

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  27. My best uncal ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    =============== http://www.homejobs7.com

  28. Great stuff about the New Year’s Resolutions for the Government perspective. I really like this read.
    Happy New Year Shayari 2019

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.