Too bad our government totally ignored the Simpson-Bowles report.

[IUCrazy2]

One other comment on this...

If people like some service the government offers, I don't have any problem with them paying for it. Make each of those particular services optional and a la carte. Allow the people who want them to pay the bills for them. And what funds the Treasury raises for each one of those a la carte services becomes that service's budget.

I truly would have no issue with people putting their own money where their mouths are. But if they're operating of the belief that they can get all the money they need from other people....then they don't really "like what the government does" as much as they say they do. They only like those things when somebody else is paying the freight.

So first, I am not saying that there isn't room to tighten the belt. Of course there is. I am saying that the way Musk is going about it is ham-fisted and stupid. He might be a good idea guy on some things but in this role he isn't it.

Your a la carte approach wouldn't work. We spend more on interest than we do on national defense and the reason we have most of the interest is related to health and welfare. Any "reformer" talking about anything other than getting those costs under control is a charlatan selling the same BS that got us into this pickle to begin with.

Nobody on either side of the aisle is going to be able to get their cake and eat it to. And what Trump and Musk are doing is setting a precedent that will have Republicans howling in likely 4 years.

 

[jet812]

So first, I am not saying that there isn't room to tighten the belt. Of course there is. I am saying that the way Musk is going about it is ham-fisted and stupid. He might be a good idea guy on some things but in this role he isn't it.

Your a la carte approach wouldn't work. We spend more on interest than we do on national defense and the reason we have most of the interest is related to health and welfare. Any "reformer" talking about anything other than getting those costs under control is a charlatan selling the same BS that got us into this pickle to begin with.

Nobody on either side of the aisle is going to be able to get their cake and eat it to. And what Trump and Musk are doing is setting a precedent that will have Republicans howling in likely 4 years.

Are they not going to look at interest related to health & welfare?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

So first, I am not saying that there isn't room to tighten the belt. Of course there is. I am saying that the way Musk is going about it is ham-fisted and stupid. He might be a good idea guy on some things but in this role he isn't it.

Time will tell. He's just getting underway -- and, importantly, he is pissing off all the right people.

Your a la carte approach wouldn't work.

I'm not sure what this means. I am arguing that doing it a la carte wouldn't work. Because that invariably opens the old "guns and butter" debate about what is or isn't the highest priority. And historically that just leads to the conclusion that every cow is sacred.

I've long believed that, if we're going to be able to get any cuts done in discretionary spending, the OMB is probably going to have to put a target number in place for all departments and make the departments themselves work their way backwards to hit it. Let them determine what their lowest priority items are and how to distribute cuts.

Any "reformer" talking about anything other than getting those costs under control is a charlatan selling the same BS that got us into this pickle to begin with.

I get it. But political reality is what it is.

As Obama said, when he formed Simpson-Bowles, when it comes to entitlement reform, both parties are going to have to step in the boat at the same time. And, as it stands, neither party seems at all eager to do it.

And what Trump and Musk are doing is setting a precedent that will have Republicans howling in likely 4 years.

Personally, I'd be thrilled if a Democratic administration came in and started instituting their own preferred cuts. I don't care as much who's doing the cutting or even what they're cutting. I just want to see some progress being made toward getting us to terra firma.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Time will tell. He's just getting underway -- and, importantly, he is pissing off all the right people.

Disagree and that is OK. We won't see eye to eye on this.

I'm not sure what this means. I am arguing that doing it a la carte wouldn't work. Because that invariably opens the old "guns and butter" debate about what is or isn't the highest priority. And historically that just leads to the conclusion that every cow is sacred.

Think we agree there.

I've long believed that, if we're going to be able to get any cuts done in discretionary spending, the OMB is probably going to have to put a target number in place for all departments and make the departments themselves work their way backwards to hit it. Let them determine what their lowest priority items are and how to distribute cuts.

You are already smarter than Elon and you are just playing on the internet....granted that seems to be what he is doing most of the time too.

I get it. But political reality is what it is.

As Obama said, when he formed Simpson-Bowles, when it comes to entitlement reform, both parties are going to have to step in the boat at the same time. And, as it stands, neither party seems at all eager to do it.

So again, this is all performative. It is more meant to go after perceived political opponents as opposed to truly reforming anything.

Personally, I'd be thrilled if a Democratic administration came in and started instituting their own preferred cuts. I don't care as much who's doing the cutting or even what they're cutting. I just want to see some progress being made toward getting us to terra firma.

That isn't what you are likely to get. If a President can just kind of give the finger to Congress on spending and do their own thing with the executive, that gives some pretty wide latitude for the next Democratic President to do whatever the fudge they want with money too. Heck, Biden was 75% of the way there with the school loan stunt.

More succinctly, if Congress can be ignored to cut, Congress can also be ignored to reallocate appropriations.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

That isn't what you are likely to get. If a President can just kind of give the finger to Congress on spending and do their own thing with the executive, that gives some pretty wide latitude for the next Democratic President to do whatever the fudge they want with money too. Heck, Biden was 75% of the way there with the school loan stunt.

More succinctly, if Congress can be ignored to cut, Congress can also be ignored to reallocate appropriations.

But I don't think Congress can be ignored to cut.

As I've said, I think Trump's intent is to litigate the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Had he been doing this prior to the passage of that law, he'd have a lot of latitude to impound funds (which is different than reallocating them). Every president had impoundment power prior to Nixon -- who pissed off Congress and was at the depths of Watergate at the time, to boot.

So Congress passed a law restricting the executive's ability to do it. Personally, I think they were acting within their powers to pass that statute. But I think Trump wants to get the courts' take on it.

As to this being performative, my guess is that they're laying the groundwork to create political space for Congress to act on discretionary spending during the allocation process. I agree with you that this isn't where most of the dollars are. But it's where some of the dollars are -- and some is better than none

 

[Digressions]

Whatever happened to Rockfish? Anyone know him in real life? Hope he's doing OK.

When I came back to the board I thought to myself, "there is still a lot of crimestop happening. Rock probably couldn't stand it."