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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (45679)	9/7/2010 5:26:45 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

If you don't include the tax limitation (either a direct limitation, or the point I was calling for a super-majority for tax increases) with a BBA, another alternative that would make the BBA ok in my book is if you repeal the entitlements first, and make them compete in the budget like any other program. That way every penny of extra spending by them would get scored as an increase, and you wouldn't have the built in bias to tax increases (at least not once you get past the "tax cuts are going to expire" period). Note I didn't say cancel the entitlement programs (although that could be debated), I said "repeal the entitlements". You can have the programs without having them as entitlements. I basically don't think there should be any entitlement programs, which is a separate point from concerns about social spending (since you can spend tons as normal appropriations).