Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (746983)	8/4/2006 1:34:05 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: "They do seem to suggest that several temporary cuts shouldn't be extended or made permanent." Not really. They suggest that ONLY in the event that run-away spending is not cut back --- which is their main objective. For example, they support such budgeting changes as PAYGO rules like we had during some of the Clinton/Rubin years. (Marginally effective at restraining growth of the federal budget deficit: 'PAYGO' rules put the obligation upon anyone who wanted to EITHER cut revenue or increase spending to come up with off-setting budget cuts so as to be 'revenue neutral'.) A Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget would be even more effective, IMO, and would produce the ancillary benefit of restraining the run-away growth in the size of the government, as well. No reason we shouldn't have both sets of rules....