Re: [Blue Ribbon Committee not being "structural change" whatsoever. By my definition anyway.] "It seems we agree more than I thought we did."
Not unexpected, that....
Re: [However, I regard *almost any* "structural change" as BETTER and STRONGER then all the non-structural changes, all the non-lasting, non-guaranteed changes that there are.] "Here is where we disagree. I think actual serious reduction in deficits, however they are reduced, will have a greater effect on future deficits, than the very weak structural changes will (not perhaps than strong structural changes, but I don't see any of them happening any time soon)"
But, you see that we are NOT really disagreeing... because I am stating actual METHODS for reducing spending and chronic deficits (Constitutional amendment, etc.) while you are only stating what is, in effect, a tautology by saying that "reducing spending will reduce deficits..."
Well... OF COURSE IT WOULD!
We have absolutely no disagreement at ALL on that simple point.
But... HOW to bring that about?
How to effect that?
How to FORCE that? (Because, make no mistake: the politicians --- of BOTH PARTIES --- will have to be FORCED to reduce spending!)
And how to make sure that the effect (lower spending) lasts for as long as possible, and is not over-turned with the very next election or flip-flop by a politician??????????????
You see that is where I believe that we have the difference:
What I propose is a METHOD to achieve a lasting result... (while I believe that you are merely stating a preference for that same result... but *without* putting forward any actual POLICY likely to be effective at achieving that result... other then what I call the "elect a new 'Fearless Leader' that we can all put our faith in".
Which, in my personal opinion, and without putting too fine a point on it, is mere romantic bunkum. No time in living memory has that actually worked. |
