Washington Times: Opinion: Tom Schatz And Ron Lazof: "The Bloated Federal Government": How to Reform The Federal Government

SCHATZ AND LAZOF: Raising taxes won't fix bloated government - Washington Times

One of the problems that America has when it comes to fiscal policy and what the role of government should be. Is that Americans tend to want more government then they are willing to pay for, high taxes are unpopular in this country. Unlike in Europe but high government spending isn't especially if Americans don't have to pay for it in higher taxes. And the Federal Government unlike State Governments can just borrow money from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia etc. To pay for their government spending that Americans don't want to pay for themselves and if politicians. Force them to pay for the government spending in either higher taxes or in spending cuts, politicians risk. Losing what in too many cases they cherish most which is their jobs either in Congress or in the White House. Unlike one of the advantages that state governments have is that they don't control the Federal currency. So they can't take out a loan from another country and are forced to pay their bills with either new revenue. Or by cutting spending which forces the states to set priorities and actually have a budget and not decide to. Spend more just because some new crisis arises.

So if we really want to get our fiscal house and order so to speak where at the very least our debt and deficit. Is not growing faster then our economy and they are actually coming down and shrinking, we need to restore. Limited government in this country which is going to require politicians to actually lead and tell voters I can't. Do everything that you want me to do for you with either current revenue or spending levels, which means I. Need you to layout what you want me to do and I'll do what I can to do that for you or I'll tell you what I expect. Government to do based on the resources that we have based on what I believe the Federal Government should be doing. And it might not be as much government that you want from me but it will be based on what I believe the. Federal Government should be doing based on the resources that we have and if we are going to go further then. That I'm going to have to cut in areas where the Federal Government shouldn't have as big of a role and where. The people should be doing more for themselves.

Limited government is especially important especially in an era of limited resources with rising debt and deficits. And with sluggish economic growth which means politicians need to figure out exactly what the Federal Government. Should be doing and cut in areas where we shouldn't be spending as much money and reform in areas where. We need the government to play a role but need it to do a better job and that means cutting budgets, making government. Work better and requiring that all Americans are paying their fair share in taxes.

The Washington Times: Kyle Scott: 'No New Taxes Without Spending Limits'

Source:The Washington Times- cover photo.

"Between servicing the debt and funding entitlement programs, our government is overburdened by its financial obligations. In the current negotiations over how we can avoid falling off the fiscal cliff, some Republicans have indicated willingness to give in to the Democrats’ demands that taxes be raised in order to meet these obligations. Unless limits are placed on spending levels, however, increasing government revenue will not solve the problem in the long term. Any increase in revenue must be accompanied by a limit on spending.

The growth in government is reflected in its spending, which has steadily increased as a percentage of the nation’s GDP. Whenever the government increases its spending obligations, the taxpayers are asked to give “just a little bit more.” Over time, this “little bit more” ends up being quite a bit more. Unless we put a limit on how much the government can spend, it will keep spending, and taxpayers will continually be asked to give more.

Placing a cap on government spending as a percentage of GDP would accomplish several important goals. First, it would ensure that the growth of government is directly tied to the growth of the private sector. It makes little sense for government services and spending to grow at a time when the private sector is struggling to find its economic footing. When the government seeks to help the economy by spending taxpayer money, the spending guarantees the growth of government and nothing else. Taking money from some and giving it to others in hopes of spurring economic growth is like taking water from one end of the bathtub and dumping it in the other in an effort to raise the overall water level in the tub." 

From The Washington Times

Q R Legal: 'Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income Benefits in Pennsylvania'

Source:QR Legal- attorney at law in Pennsylvania.

"The attorneys at Quatrini Rafferty help you apply for Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income SSD/SSI in Pennsylvania. The lawyers at the Greensburg office of Quatrini Rafferty will explore your case for filing for either SSD or SSI. If you have been seriously impaired and can no longer work you may be able to apply for Social Security Disability or Social Security Income. The attorneys at Quatrini Rafferty can help you with your claim and case and are members of the National Organization of Social Security Representatives. Working on a contingency fee, we get no fee if we don't win you case, no fee charged to you." 

From QR Legal

All this talk about Social Security reform I believe is healthy as long as the proposals are about reforming this critical social insurance program. As long as the proposals are designed to improve this program not to end the program or privatize the program. But whatever the proposal is, it has to include Disability Insurance which is also part of Social Security. So however we decide to reform Social Security, it has to be done in a way that doesn't hurt Disability Insurance. And if anything improves Disability Insurance to make that program as strong as it can be as well. 

My ideas for Social Security reform gets too, choice and competition, as well as decentralization. Not privatization which is a different concept. Privatization is about letting people take over with payroll tax investing it in Wall Street and anything else on their own. And if they make bad investments, too bad for them or they end up getting bailed out by taxpayers. Two options are horrible, as a country we are not going to let senior citizens starve and go without income. At least not anymore and we are not going to bail out people who made bad investments with their own money. 

We have to reform Social Security in a way to avoid both potential disasters. What choice and competition is about in retirement planning or as I would put it, freedom of choice in retirement planning is about, to give people for freedom and ability to plan their own retirements. Which is called Social Security Plus: keep the payroll tax intact, except raise it on people who can afford to pay more to fix the financing and that the current payroll tax would just be there to fund a base income for people on Social Security.  

What Social Security Plus is about, is an additional fund or tax that people could on their own or not set up for themselves to help them finance their own retirement, that they would pay into and their employer would match. That they could invest in the Stock Market as well as other business opportunities as long as they don't take that money out to spend until they are eligible to retire. And the money thats put into a personal retirement account (not my term, by the way) would be tax free, like an IRA or individual retirement account which are private retirement accounts as well. 

As far as decentralization and reforming Disability Insurance goes, this might be the only thing that I agree with Texas Governor Rick Perry and maybe immigration reform. Turn Social Security over to the states in this sense, each state would have their own version of Social Security with their own program. But they wouldn't run them just regulate them like the FEDS as well. Each State would have their own version Social Security that would be a semi-private, non-profit, supplemental pension program. And get the Administration and Congress's hands off of it. 

And with Disability Insurance, anyone physically and mentally capable of working at least part-time, would be required to or at least looking for work and getting trained for work. And Disability Insurance would be required to help them with that. Which would also be my approach with Unemployment Insurance. 

You can't reform Social Security without doing it in a way that doesn't hurt Disability Insurance because they are both part of the same program. And both have populations that depend on it in order to survive, pay their bills, eat, etc. So we have to reform Social Security as a whole in a way that can only make this critical program stronger.