It would be nice to have spending cuts as an actual guiding principle instead of just an electioneering lip-synch. Passing the SLA would require adhering to it, unlike pay-go. That means it has to be passed without carve-outs or exceptions – including emergencies. If you have an emergency, pay for it. Don’t partially fund a quick response with the provision that “we’ll get back to you later on the rest of it.” Either get in, or get out.

It has to be with real penalties to the individual Congress-folk who violate or otherwise ignore it. I don’t know what – censure; ostracism; surrender of committee assignments; loss of seniority. Dammit we need to show that we mean business about this. Without an enforceable penalty for violation, we will just be playing the same old song over again.

And, frankly, I am not optimistic.

I haven’t looked it over enough to see if it has anything like the SLA that you are talking about, but it addresses the entitlements which are the most difficult problems.

The media will attack his proposals, but what good is all the momentum and energy of the TEA party movement if we don’t use it to make long-term solutions like this.

It would be awesome to see a Chris Christie taking the bully pulpit and explaining why we need these dramatic changes.

If this first diary is an indication of your work, you will quickly be one of the front pagers we look forward to hearing from often, not to say anything bad about all the others. I already like your priorities, and willingness to call it like it is, even if it is not flattering to all Republicans. Thank you for that.

You are so correct in talking about entitlement reform, a term buried in past elections for fear of lost elections. The situation in Greece, and many other European countries has been much in the news. Anyone with any intelligence or sense knows that that is the direction we are headed in if we do not get our Washington house in order, and post haste. Any talk of entitlement reform must be well explained, and well sold, and, it can be done. The young people today would gladly have privitized retirement and healthcare accounts for their golden years. It seems to be the elderly that think they are going to lose everything, and, of course the Democrats keep that fear mongering alive. With the passage of Obamacare, the evil death panels, and groups like AARP abandoning them, they should be wide awake to alternative Republican reforms.

Yes, the Republicans must offer the voters a clear alternative, other than the usual “we are not the Democrats” meme. Watching the polls, voters, especially the Independents haven’t gained a tremendous amount of faith that the Republicans have learned their fiscal lessons. Also, sending some of the same destructive Republicans back to Washington, such as McCain, can and will be a major turnoff to many. The only hope will be in the number of conservatives that take those seats. The conservative momentum is with us, if we grab it and run with it. As the above poster said, there must be some sort of punishment with those Republicans that break rank, and continue to reach across the aisle, Snowe and Collins, and, as of late Brown.

As to removing some of the departments in the Federal government, it would be a great idea to talk to Fred Thompson. Shortly before leaving the Senate, he did research on and published his Government at the Brink document. He applied specific examples of duplicate and triplicate departments, all assigned with the same duties, and, wasting the taxpayers money. The Federal Government has only grown even more so since then. He would be a great consultant for those serious about finally cutting the gargantuan government machine.

Again, welcome Russ, I look forward to reading your work.

I like the Spending Limits Amendment, but a constitutional amendment that “Democrats simply cannot endorse” is one that simply has no chance of passage given the super-majorities required to amend the U.S. Constitution. A balanced budget amendment would have at least a plausible chance of passage.

But even a successful balanced budget amendment would most likely take several years to enact. We really need something that can be enacted by statute or congressional rules in the short term.

1. Any “Amendment” is really a gimmick. There simply aren’t the votes either in Congress or in the States… who use federal largess to see them past tough times… to pass an amendment to the Constitution.

2. While I can see the utility of SLA, the BBA is simply nonsense as a policy proposal. It was when it was first proposed and it hasn’t gotten better in the meantime. Take the most current text:

Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

I’m not sure this actually does very much for us. It might be useful as a cudgel on Democrats this fall but we should recognize it for what it is.

Obviously we have to move towards entitlement reform and that realization is setting in with the public. Up until the Bush Administration actually had a debate on Social Security and private accounts, Social Security was referred to as the third rail of politics.

Having said that, I think that pushing for a Constitutional amendment isn’t much more than a punt.

Welcome aboard, Russ.

Cut 10% from EVERY line item in the Fed budget. All money saved goes to pay down the debt. No carve-outs, no exceptions, no ifs, ands, or buts.
Just do it.

We cash-squeezed Americans do this at home. There’s no reason our government should not do the same.

There. That’s a simple, clear, and immediately effective fiscal plan that won’t take a herd of accountants to explain.