Congressman Introduces Bill To Ban Minting of Trillion-Dollar Coin

Dainsanefh writes with news that the new Congress isn't wasting any time getting back to work. From the article: "Lawmakers are still positioning themselves for a debt ceiling fight in a few months, but one Republican congressman wants to snuff out a particular idea immediately: the U.S. Treasury minting $1 trillion platinum coins to avert a debt ceiling showdown. Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) has introduced a bill to specifically ban President Barack Obama from minting the coins. The trillion-dollar coin has been previously discussed on Slashdot:"

Comments

Any member can introduce a bill but...

[Calibax]

It's a long way from introducing a bill to getting it through Congress and signed by the President.

Re:Any member can introduce a bill but...

[headhot]

Yea, I'm sure if Obama is planning to use the only constitutional out, he probably would not sign this bill.

Re:Any member can introduce a bill but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to override a presidential veto. Unlikely.

Re:Any member can introduce a bill but...

[gtbritishskull]

Passing a law is not the same as having it followed

Exactly. Like the spending bills that Congress has passed that cannot be implemented if the debt limit is not raised.

Yes, End the Insane Spending

[eldavojohn]

“This scheme to mint trillion dollar platinum coins is absurd and dangerous, and would be laughable if the proponents weren’t so serious about it as a solution,” Walden said in a statement. “My bill will take the coin scheme off the table by disallowing the Treasury to mint platinum coins as a way to pay down the debt.”

I couldn't agree more, we need to reign in this insane spending. But, you know, I would like to know why Congressman Walden voted against limiting funding for the war in Afghanistan? Probably because he's actually for spending taxpayer money, increasing the debt and then trying to stick the president with the bill at the end of the night so he looks like a dumbass. Well, too bad, you're all equal dumbasses when it comes to fiscal policy. All of this is just childish. The Republicans made deals with the Democrats to spend spend spend on both sides and now they want to act like they've been trying to stop spending all along. And it's getting ridiculous. And Republicans have a brilliant plan to solve all the problems by blocking any legislation and flirting with a second recession? Burn in hell, you're just as responsible if not more responsible for the insane spending (you're still writing blank checks for one of dubya's religious crusades).

Re:Yes, End the Insane Spending

[Mr. Slippery]

I'll vote for anyone that'll lower taxes and spend less.

This is the problem with the public. Taxes in the U.S., overall, are already quite low compared to other nations and to our history. They need to rise, most especially on the weathy, not be lowered.

Unfortunately that amounts to pretty much no-one in either party and I'm only allowed to vote for those 2 parties so I'm screwed.

"Allowed" by whom? There are numerous "third parties" on the ballot in most states; and while third parties rarely win directly due to out fsck-up electoral system, voting for them does influence the Big Two.

Re:Yes, End the Insane Spending

[Alomex]

So in the long run, taxes (and spending) just keep going up and up and up.

I call BS. Let's look at famously "high taxes" countries in Europe. Taxes in Germany are the same as they were in 1975. France are at the same level as in 1985, Sweden same as in 1975. UK same as in 1980. Netherlands same as in 1973. Canada same level as in 1980. USA same level as in 1965.

What about this.

[p0p0]

You know that war you're fighting? The one with no point or purpose?
Why don't you just stop?
Like, just pack it up. Leave. Go home.

Instead of cutting a bunch of little growths, why not just take out the tumour and save the effort? No one would blame you. No one would care. Oh sure we'll make fun of you for a bit, but it'll be forgotten, or rewritten. No one will really be that upset by it.

Go on. We're here for you.

Re:What about this.

[istartedi]

You know that war you're fighting? The one with no point or purpose?

You're going to have to be a little more specific. The war in Afghanistan? The continued occupation of former Axis powers that are now allies? The war on drugs? The war on dignity at airports? The wars on poverty where we spend $1 million /year to create one $10k /year job? All of them, or just some of them? Please specify.

Re:What about this.

[wierd_w]

The issue is that a frightening portion of the USA's domestic economy is beholden to government and military contracts. Without the spending, a huge part of the domestic economy will suffer implosions.

Say for instance, aerospace. What do you think will happen to cessna and boeing without new contracts for fighters and bombers? (At several million dollars a pop?) What about the foundries, mills, chemical companies, and other satellite organizations that supply BOEING, Cessna and pals? If BOEING slows, or liquidates in the face of less govt spending, the avalanche in that industry sector isn't going to be very nice.

This is what happens when the majority of an economy becomes dominated by a small handful of very large players; the system becomes far more vulnrable to a major upheval by a shift in conditions, much like the recently infamous banking disaster.

"Just quitting" on major war expenditures would be catastrophic. A huge portion of the USA's economy is built around war profiteering.

Re:What about this.

[alen]

We did that after the Cold War ended
We got a huge economic and technological boost as those people were freed up for the civilian economy

Re:What about this.

[PerformanceDude]

Redirect the spending into the space program and reap the rewards. The US had a golden age on the back of the technological advances made possible through the Gemini and Apollo programs. It can be done again...

Re:What about this.

[Colonel Korn]

You know that war you're fighting? The one with no point or purpose?

You're going to have to be a little more specific. The war in Afghanistan? The continued occupation of former Axis powers that are now allies? The war on drugs? The war on dignity at airports? The wars on poverty where we spend $1 million /year to create one $10k /year job? All of them, or just some of them? Please specify.

I think the American plan can be concisely described as the war on liberty.

Re:What about this.

[wierd_w]

For a very recent example, look at Hawker Beechcraft.

They failed in the recent rounds of government contract negotiations for building fighter planes.

Now they are basically bankrupt. Happened in under 2 years.

The same thing could easily happen to BOEING, CESSNA, and other military parts and vehicle suppliers. This is because large corporations treat all funding as fungible resurces, and allocate money from profit leaders to loss leaders. (See for instance, the Cessna/textron mess of about 3 years ago.) Big players absolutely depend upon the military contracts they get, because without them, they logistically just can't keep operating on the scales that they currently operate under. (Note the hawker implosion.)

The same is true for may other large scale industries.

A reduction in military spending would have to be commensurate with an equal or larger increase in civilian contracts, and let's face it, the world only needs so many 787 and 777 luxury airliners. Military ones get blown up, and need replacement. Civilian employed ones don't get replaced excepting for when they blow up on runways, or fall out of the sky.

Unless BOEING and pals start selling to international govts to offset local govt contract losses from military spending cuts, there will be a great shout of agony from the aerospace industry, and massive layoffs. Bet on it.

That's just one industry too. The automotive industry has similar lifesupport ties to military contracts for things like humvees, ATVs, jeeps, and other military grade vehicles, and will take a significant dive as well.

Foundries and chemical firms, faced with board-wide reductions in order volumes from the major customers, will likewise downsize.

It would result in a catastrophic and phyrric reduction in economic power. That's why military spending is such a sacred cow.

Re:What about this.

[maugle]

This might work in the short term, but infrastructue is a durable good; once built, it lasts a very long time. Look at the national highway system. Still there,

You may want to use a different example, since almost all the bridges of that highway system now need complete replacement.

Re:What about this.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It would result in a catastrophic and phyrric reduction in economic power. That's why military spending is such a sacred cow."

No, it's why it's the economic equivalent of crack cocaine paid for with a credit card. Break the fricking addition and invest in OTHER industries. Trillions of dollars tossed into guns, ammo, planes, tanks, ships, and on and on? More than the rest of the world spends IN TOTAL? It's nuts. Yet the country can't afford universal healthcare, inexpensive university education, or balance a budget without endless deficits whether the economy is bad OR good? You can't build generation after generation of prosperity on a false economy. And you don't have to change things via a drastic changeover. Change things slowly. At least get things headed in the right direction. Cut back a little at a time, redirect funds to where it will pay off over time. As someone else mentioned, the buggy whip manufacturers will transform or go out of business. As long as there are other businesses, it's fine.

I mean, hell, I can think of one industry with a need for huge investment: energy. Stop building fricking tanks, and fund fusion research SERIOUSLY instead of making a token effort. Invest in EVERYTHING until there is a long-term solution.

But the first step is to realize you have a serious and pathological problem in the first place. When even the military is saying "we don't need some of these weapons systems", but the legislators are still approving them for the sake of pork barrel politics in their local district, then what clearer sign of a problem can there possibly be?

Moron.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if it got to the President's desk with a Veto-proof majority, he could order the minting well in advance, and the Mint would have it done.

Heck, if I was Obama, I'd order up a collector's set of Jillion Dollar Coins just to fuck around with the collection of horse's asses that is the GOP.

Can't America get its acts together ?

[Taco Cowboy]

I mean, why should the United States of America resort to legal loopholes ?

Why can't America just face the reality as it is - that it is spending way too much money than it is making??

How long do you think America can keep spending the money it doesn't have?

I mean, even if America get the minting of quadrillion-dollar plutonium ingot going, the world doesn't have to "buy" it.

All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means.

Why can't America?

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[headhot]

We have separation of powers. Congress writes the budget, appropriates funds, and signs off on debt. Congress also knows that both houses and the President need to sign anything they pass. The President, constitutionally can do none of this. So, if Congress wants to defund things, it can, but they have to do it in a way the President agrees. Also, remember, the House needs to write a bill the Senate will pass. Forget getting it to the President.
We just re-elected Obama, and the House and Senate, even after reapportionment, lost Rs. Its Congresses job to work with the President at this point, not the other way around.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[PvtVoid]

All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means.

Why can't America?

Because countries aren't people, and different economic rules apply. "All of us" can't declare war, mint currency, prosecute crimes, or ratify international treaties, either.

The sad fact of the budget debate is that retarded comparisons like this actually resonate with people. Inbred, mouthbreathing hicks, sure, but enough about Congress; their constituencies are even scarier.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[gtbritishskull]

More American voted for Democrats than for Republicans in the house. The only reason the kept the house is because of gerrymandering.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[chill]

This isn't about the world. This would be used to pay the Fed, who'd have little choice in the matter. The Fed owns about 47% of our debt. Foreigners hold about 25%.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, why should the United States of America resort to legal loopholes ?

Why can't America just face the reality as it is - that it is spending way too much money than it is making??

How long do you think America can keep spending the money it doesn't have?

Just as a bit of background: The President of the US is the Executive. Broadly speaking, Congress passes bills to authorize him to do Various Things, and Congress passes bills to allow him to borrow the money to pay for it.

This "passes bills to allow him to borrow the money" is also known as the "debt ceiling". Historically this is uncontroversial and Congress does it as a matter of course. However in recent times, they've started pushing back.

So we're in the faintly ridiculous situation of Congress telling the President to do Various Things, but not giving him the funds to do them with.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why it's not a national popular vote.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Mitreya]

Why can't America just face the reality as it is - that it is spending way too much money than it is making??

We should.
But this debate is not about that AT ALL. The debt ceiling (and all the platinum coin crap) is about borrowing money to cover the expenses already approved (by Congress, mind you)

The Republicans keep shouting about "spending too much money", but oddly they are not willing to cut defense spending or eliminate the useless TSA (or to stop arguing for more wars). Either way, the debate about spending has to happen during budgeting, not during the debt ceiling extension.

All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means.

While your basic point is valid, it has been repeatedly pointed out that government budget balancing is nothing like a family budget. A family cannot expect to improve finances by borrowing and investing into infrastructure. Moreover, family income will not shrink (recession) if said family buys fewer things. If government income was constant (i.e. salary-like) regardless of what happened to economy, you would have a better argument.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[aardvarkjoe]

Well, Congress right now is mostly controlled by two political parties, one of which wants to raise taxes and spend more money than we've got, and the other of which wants to lower taxes and spend more money than we've got.

As long as people keep voting these lunatics into office, this is going to keep happening.

And honestly, I don't see that stopping before the US economy completely collapses. I only hope it takes long enough to do so that I won't be around for it.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[PopeRatzo]

I mean, even if America get the minting of quadrillion-dollar plutonium ingot going, the world doesn't have to "buy" it.

The world doesn't have to "buy" it.

It's just to get us over this ridiculous notion that Republicans should play chicken with the government every few months by threatening to not pay the bills we've already incurred. You know, things like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and such.

There is a constitutional way to limit spending, and it's got nothing to do with threatening to not pay the debts we've already rung up. If the GOP wants to limit spending, they do it through legislation, not by toying with the faith and credit of the nation.

The coin is a splendid idea, as long as the Fed covers it with bonds in a timely manner.

The trillion-dollar coin is no more a "gimmick" than is threatening to refuse to raise the debt limit. Congress needs to do its job. The House controls spending and the Republicans control the House. Money doesn't get spent without their say-so. If they want to limit spending, then they should just do it. Problem is, they don't want their fingerprints on anything besides cutting funding to public broadcasting, Smokey the Bear and Planned Parenthood, and that doesn't even pay for one C-17 cargo plane (you know, the one that the military doesn't want but is built in John Boehner's district).

They should mint the trillion dollar coin and put Ronald fucking Reagan's picture on it.

By the way, today on Fox, one of the pundits said "Where are they going to find $1trillion in platinum?" Honest to christ, we've got dumbfucks leading the blind.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[snspdaarf]

Careful. That title is not fixed.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Maxo-Texas]

The problem since 1980, is that those with the most money have voted that they pay a lower share of taxes than their share of wealth.

They've been starving 98% of the country out- taking the wealth and income for themselves.

Finally-- Finally (I've been waiting at least 8 years)-- the bottom 98% woke up and said, "wow! The top 1% is taking everything- why the hell do I keep voting to slit my own throat".

If the top 1% earns 40% of the countries income, they are going to need to pay 40% of the taxes.

And since you need at least the first 15,000 to 20,000 just to live, the top 1% are going to pay over 40% of the taxes because after sales tax, gas tax, cell phone tax, etc. tax the bottom 30% is already living in poverty and can't afford federal income tax.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Kwyj1b0]

All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means.

I think you'd be surprised at how much debt the average household carries.

Why can't America?

I can pilot an aircraft, why can't I be an astronaut or land on the moon? This is an absurd argument. No one says that you shouldn't live within your means, but countries have a lot of different responsibilities and options than the average citizen. For one, the US can print its own currency - albeit causing inflation. A country owes a billion dollars to someone? Print a billion dollar note and pay them. They just reduced the value of the country's currency, but are debt free (unless they other party owns TIPS). And debt based financing is very common - Boeing might be delivering an aircraft at the end of 6 months to a client, but doesn't have the money for payroll stashed in a bank. They take a loan (debt) to finance growth (making a profit on the aircraft sales) while hiring employees. Countries do the same.

You can buy bonds for many companies on the market - IBM, MSFT, etc.And if the country/organization is credit worthy, they can sell bonds at very low yields - effectively almost "free" money. If they use that for growth, they will profit. The same holds for countries.

Basically, your analogy is flawed - debt isn't itself necessarily a problem. It is what you do with that debt that decides if you go broke or profit.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that wonderful 15% tax on capital gains great?

Based on the lowness of taxes for the wealthy, and trickle down economics, we've has the best economy since WWII.

Oh, wait.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Because America doesn't operate like a person, America operates like, well, a business(except that it's primary goal isn't generating profit).

Some guy on the internet has a good run down on this.

Besides, most of our debt is to well, us. And we're good for the money. The problem is the debt ceiling and the fact that taxes are too low and the rent is too damned high(or alternatively that wages are also too damned low).

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[clarkkent09]

Your logic is flawed. It is perfectly possible for more people to vote for Democrats and yet Republicans (or vice versa) to win the house by a landslide without any gerrymandering. You have to win more congressional districts, not more overall votes. Republicans traditionally have support in far more geographical areas (break it down by states, or counties or whatever) than Democrats: http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/11/07/CountyMap2012.main.jpg Democrats get their votes from a small number of densely populated areas.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Fast Thick Pants]

America can, and hopefully will again.

Balancing the checkbook is good, but there are times when it might be a good idea to grit your teeth and take out a loan. Imagine waking up one Monday morning in a muddy ditch with a missing front tooth and a vague recollection of your wife clearing out your joint accounts and running off with some musclebound thug, in your car. You painfully make your way home to realize that she's burned down the house. What are you going to do? Not balance the checkbook. Not get all high and mighty and track them down in South America either. (OT, ever read Dog of the South? Great book.) No, you're going to say good riddance and get on with your life. You're going to find a phone, call in sick, get your damn tooth fixed, buy a cheap suit, rent a car, get a hotel room, and get back to work as soon as possible. And you're going to do it all on credit. If you're not willing to go into debt here, you'll be severely impacting your future earning potential, ie, you'll be a filthy toothless bum forever.

This is a pretty good metaphor for the shape the country was in when Obama took over, btw. It's even got a car in it. I'm not about to go blaming it all on Bush, either; there's plenty of blame to go around. Anyway: We're in an emergency. Balancing the budget through spending cuts, as righteous as some of those cuts may sound, is likely to decrease economic activity and make things worse. It's important for us to realize that deficit spending should be a last resort, and the goal should be to stop it ASAP. But it's not time yet.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[ThermalRunaway]

> The problem since 1980, is that those with the most money have voted that they pay a lower share of taxes than their share of wealth.

No. What is "their share" and why should it be more simply because they are more successful? In fact the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all taxes and the top 50% pay 98% (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html).

The problem is we continue to take from the top 50% and give it away to the bottom 50% who pay essentially nothing and in many cases get a refund check anyway for various credits. This does little to motivate anyone to try and make more money.

>the bottom 98% woke up and said, "wow! The top 1% is taking everything

I think you mean the top 50% are getting tired of funding the bottom 50%. Everyone should pay something if they have an income. If you have no skin in the game you have no reason to care if taxes go up on everyone else and you will continue to vote yourself more money.

This sums up the real problem nicely:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."
-- Alexander Fraser Tyler

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Runaway1956]

No - the solution is to "punish" both ends of the spectrum. Make the top 1 or 5 or 15 percent pay their share. Stop giving all those entitlements away.

The people in the middle (like me, and mine) get just about nothing from the government, but the government is in our pockets, taking about 1/3 of our wages every week. All the entitlements go over me, past me, or under me. We, the working people, don't benefit from food stamps, free housing, free utilities, and sure don't benefit from an inverted tax schedule scheme, and we DAMNED SURE don't benefit from wars being fought halfway around the world to enrich the oil industries.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[__aaltlg1547]

Your logic is flawed. It is perfectly possible for more people to vote for Democrats and yet Republicans (or vice versa) to win the house by a landslide without any gerrymandering.

That may be so, but gerrymandering is what happened.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[mbkennel]

Exactly. The reason the Senate isn't like that is because you can't gerrymander states's borders every 10 years.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[l0ungeb0y]

All of us balance our own checkbook at the end of every single month, and try our best to live within our means. Why can't America?

Because FUCK YOU! WE'RE AMERICA -- that's why.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Gorobei]

So, since I've been rated as a troll already - go figure.

The solution is to just punish the people making money by giving more benefits to those that won't work?

If you think paying taxes is "punishment," you have already placed yourself outside of society as commonly defined.

Do you hate your kids because they cost you money? Are you really being "punished" for being a parent? The USA wants you to succeed: it's not "punishing" you for making more money, it's taking some money to keep society running and ideally investing in the next generation.

You can whine about if it's fair or not. You can even whine about if we should care about making the world a better place for our children, but claiming "punishment" requires a lot more justification on your part.

The USA celebrates success: Bezos, Gates, Buffet, etc are lauded in the press; TV shows and movies makes riches the ultimate happy outcome; being rich gives you a huge benefit when dealing with the legal system. You can be rich here and there is zero demand that you use your money for social good - you can just buy 200 foot boats or hookers or drugs and no one yells at you (try that in Europe!)

So quit whining that you live in a country where you don't need bodyguards when you go to a bar, get drunk on $20 vodkas, pick up a girl who earns $35K/year, get driven home, have sex, and complain to her that the 500,000th dollar per year you earn gets taxed at 50%.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[gtbritishskull]

Before I get into it, I want to point out that I googled "healthy young people collecting social security" and got no results indicating healthy young people collecting social security. So, unless you want to provide a cite I call bullshit.

Now, maybe you are confusing the increase in people claiming disability benefits from social security for these "healthy young people". I actually see that as proof that we are not in the entitlement society that you want to see. Disability requirements have not changed. What has changed is that unemployment is higher. So, what I see is that people prefer to contribute and NOT collect disability, but when they can't find a job they take advantage of the safety nets set up for them.

You also complain about the "entitlement" of food stamps. Food stamps give you ~$200 per month (per person). Maybe you feel you can live the high life on $200 per month, but I feel that is a measly amount of money. And I don't know why you think it is a luxury to be able to buy chips and soda. Eating fresh, healthy, unprocessed food is expensive and a luxury. A most poor people eat crappy food (like chips and soda) because it is all they can afford.

As to your "free cell phone program". I assume what you are talking about is the "Lifeline" program, which subsidizes a phone by up to $10 per month. I don't know what type of deal you get on cell phone plans, but $10 per month for a cell phone would not get me much.

The problems that I see are that labor is not appreciated in the US any more. Productivity in the US has steadily increased over the past 40 years, but real wages have been stagnant. If the workers aren't getting the benefits of increased productivity, then who is? EARNED income (ie income that you work for) is taxed at a MINIMUM rate of 15% for everyone for social security and medicare (actually, by everyone I just mean middle class or lower, the upper middle class and upper class have to pay less taxes) plus whatever income taxes they pay. But, on UNEARNED income (ie income that you get from not working or doing anything productive) they have a MAXIMUM tax rate of 20% (15% below $400,000).

So yes, I agree with you that the system is being abused. But, I think we disagree on who is abusing it.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Wow. No one I've ever met has said, "I would make more but I'd just get taxed more." No one.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[ThermalRunaway]

Lets say top end rates go back to some of the historically high ones that have existed.. say 70% to 90% on income above $X, what possible incentive would there be to earn that money in the US? Someone with the ability to earn that money will choose to do it in a region where its not taxed like that.

Look at Google, Starbucks, etc, that are doing just that by taking that income in places like Ireland. So no they dont say "I just wont make more", they do it outside the US where they dont pay taxes on it and that money leaves our economy.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Algae_94]

Just assuming all your points are correct, and the bottom half of the country can't pay taxes. I assume that is because they just can't survive on their current incomes and pay taxes. Does that sound like a situation where the people that can pay should pay as little as possible and cut every social program we can find? That is surely a fantastic way to get the bottom 50% to make more money and be able to pay their share.

... they don't want to carry the bottom 50% (and they are right)

When did it become right to not help other people? When exactly did we reach the utopia that you preach about where people collect their wealth and give nothing back to society?

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[cold fjord]

More American voted for Democrats than for Republicans in the house. The only reason the kept the house is because of gerrymandering.

The author of that article you link to is also either badly confused, or trying to mislead the reader. Elections for representatives in the House are on a per-district basis only, it isn't based on some sort of national tally. A heavy Democratic party vote in a couple of large states could easily result in an aggregate house vote count nationally for Democrats well above that for Republicans, but that is meaningless nationally since each district votes to elect its own representative. A million to 1 Democratic votes in San Francisco, California, doesn't help a Democrat running in Reno, Nevada.

There is a lot more to it than that. Of course, even then it isn't quite so fun when the shoe is on the other foot, it is?

Michael Barone: Republicans Find Refuge in the House

The GOP has now won control of the House in eight of the past 10 congressional elections, dating back to 1994. When I began following politics it seemed like that would never happen. Republicans failed to win a majority in the House in the 20 elections between 1954 and 1992. Political scientists wrote articles about how the Democrats would always have a lock on the House. . .

Democrats seem to have a structural advantage these days in the Electoral College. . .

The House is another matter. Here the Republicans have some structural advantages which, with good luck, have given them House majorities eight of the last 10 times. That is important, because since the mid-1990s Americans have become straight-ticket voters, seldom voting for candidates of different parties.

One structural advantage is demographic. Democratic voters tend to be clustered in black, Latino and gentry-liberal neighborhoods in metropolitan areas. Republican voters are more spread out. In 2008, Mr. Obama carried 28 congressional districts with more than 80% of the vote. John McCain carried zero congressional districts by that margin; Mr. Romney may have gotten that much in a couple of districts in Utah.

Those heavily Democratic neighborhoods contribute to the landslide margins candidate Obama has won in states like California, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois. But their voters don't do as much to elect Democratic House members as they would if they were spread randomly through the population. In addition, many such areas have been losing population and therefore representation in the House.

On top of this is another Republican structural advantage: the Voting Rights Act. The prevailing interpretation of this otherwise benign law is that redistricters must maximize the number of "majority-minority" congressional districts. That means packing blacks and Latinos into certain districts and keeping them out of adjacent districts that tend to go Republican. This results in districts with grotesque and elongated boundaries to fit the bill of majority-minority. . .

A third Republican structural advantage used to belong to the Democrats: the South. . . . The Solid South helped Democrats maintain House majorities in the 1960s, '70s and '80s. . . But as the Democratic Party became more liberal, white Southerners started voting Republican for president in the 1960s, and in the straight-ticket 1990s Republicans replaced white Southern Democrats in droves. . . more

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[theIsovist]

As part of the bottom fifty percent, I encourage you to come down and live on my level. I hold an undergraduate degree from a respected university (rated in the top 50 in the world), have worked for four years in the real world, and now am back in school to continue my education and further my degree (at another top 50 school). I'm living off of less than 20k a year. A wonderful flaw in the government loan system resulted in my summer income (a school research position) being counted one for one against the amount of loan money i could take out this year. In order to pay for tuition, I had to max out my loans, and was left with 200 dollars a month to pay for rent, food, and any school expenses. I'm now, at the advice of the school, on food stamps. Let me tell you, those food stamps - 200 bucks a month - offer me so much more than you can ever imagine. They only pay for food I cook myself. No alcohol, no toiletries, not even the 5 cent bag fee if i forget my bags. However, they allow me to feel like a human. In a few years, I'll be out of grad school, working and pumping far more money into the system than I ever took out. If we taxed the people making more than 200k 36% instead of 33%, they'd still have more than 5 times the amount of money that I live on each year. I work. I work for them. I work doing research to lower energy use, saving money, resources, and perhaps even saving the planet if you're so inclined. Your freeloaders are anything but. Many of us are busting our asses to afford a better life, and one day we will have it. The difference is, we'll damn well be happy to help those below us up. We know how it is down there.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Shining Celebi]

Ummm, you know that the top 1% contributes more than 35% of taxes already, right?

And how much of the income do they earn?

If you have one CEO making 200x what his workers make - say, $40,000, so $8 million - that CEO is paying 50% of all taxes. And yet that's hardly unfair.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Rich0]

Do you want to know what the biggest entitlement program in America is? Try being born to rich parents... Nobody has less incentive to work than somebody who is just handed millions of dollars.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Ksevio]

What was it that Mitt Romney said he paid? 15%? Their tax rate might be 35% but they're not paying 35%

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No - the solution is to "punish" both ends of the spectrum. Make the top 1 or 5 or 15 percent pay their share. Stop giving all those entitlements away.

The people in the middle (like me, and mine) get just about nothing from the government, but the government is in our pockets, taking about 1/3 of our wages every week. All the entitlements go over me, past me, or under me. We, the working people, don't benefit from food stamps, free housing, free utilities, and sure don't benefit from an inverted tax schedule scheme, and we DAMNED SURE don't benefit from wars being fought halfway around the world to enrich the oil industries.

this is one of the biggest misconceptions about how the middle class benefits. of COURSE you benefit, and in one huge way: economic stability.

the safety net for people earning less than you prevents an underclass from bottoming out the economy while providing the workforce for high-labor, low-skill work. it also prevents externalities that rise from poverty, like crime, urban decay, and other unsavory elements, from getting out of hand. these "entitlements" are meant in large part to keep the economy stable so that people don't suffer from extreme swings, and that people generally have chances to work hard and succeed.

i'll agree with you on the wars, and the whole point of Obama's push to raise taxes on the wealthy was to try and even out the huge benefits reaped on lower taxes.

then there are infrastructure things like highways and roads, telecom and electric, fire departments, police and other law enforcement, water, sewer, etc. which are funded by taxpayer dollars and directly benefit everyone who uses those systems.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[stretch0611]

What is "their share" and why should it be more simply because they are more successful?

One simple reason: It takes money to make money. If you are making minimum wage or any amount slightly above the poverty line, all your money is going to living expenses. You do not have money to invest.

If you have a large nest egg investing is easier... If you have bills to pay, you may be forced to remove money from the market at an inopportune time. There used to be a saying on wall street... "To turn 10 thousand dollars into 20 thousand dollars requires skill; to turn 10 million dollars into 20 million dollars requires only patience."

In addition one of the better investments is education. In general the more education you have the more you will make in the long term. However, when it is hard even for the middle class to send their kids to college, a good education is not always possible. And scholarships only take care of a small minority. Even with a full scholarship, a person may not afford college because they still need living expenses.

If you already have money, you can make smart long term investments to make your future even brighter and generate even more wealth. If you have very little, it is a struggle to keep afloat from day to day, let alone invest for the future.

I think you mean the top 50% are getting tired of funding the bottom 50%.

We realize this and it happens every day. While the wealthiest people generally are the business owners and investors, they pay employees less every year compared to inflation. Wages have stagnated, yet inflation still increases. And the travesty is that most business owners credit themselves as the only reason why their business succeeds; yet in many cases, yet the customers are more likely to deal with the low-end wage slave.

And yes, wage slave is appropriate... The wealthiest always say that if you don't like the pay to find another job; but it is hard to say no to even a bad offer when there is a lot of unemployment especially when you have children that have only had mac and cheese for the last 3 months. And when you have a job, there is not a lot of time available to actually find a new job if you are not happy.

Everyone should pay something if they have an income.

No, if someone can barely afford food and shelter, they should not pay.

And let me add this... Why is it that investment income is capped at 15% for capital gains (now 20% as of 1/1 for people over $400,000) A rate that is much lower than taxes on the middle class who work. The people who are sitting on their asses pay less in taxes (as a percentage.) Hard work should be rewarded, not sitting on investments. The rich cry foul saying that low taxes motivate them... believe me, they would be a lot more motivated if there was a real threat to the value of their wealth diminishing if they did not invest it.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[The Master Control P]

I see the lie about how the poor "pay no taxes" is out in force.

Guess what? Between Social Security, FICA, sales taxes, gas tax and other local taxes, the poor pay quite close to as large a fraction of their income in taxes as the rich do. Sure as hell more than the 15% rate on the capital gains that aren't hidden in Switzerland or Grand Cayman.

And unlike someone born rich, who has never been deprived of anything in their entire life, who goes around thinking about what a self-made-man they are and how they personally earned everything they have (while quietly not recognizing the hundred dozen government services that keep them safe and make their wealth possible), seeing 20% or 30% of my $20K/yr grad student salary disappear off the check stub actually hurts. So please spare us the tears about how you hate "funding" the people who do all the society-enabling tasks that are beneath your notice - often enough two or three of them at once since the days of a blue collar job reasonably supporting a family are Grandpa's fading memories - because you might have to light your cigars with jacksons instead of benjamins.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[frosty_tsm]

What was it that Mitt Romney said he paid? 15%? Their tax rate might be 35% but they're not paying 35%

It was 13.9% for the 2010 and 14.1% for 2011 (after not taking all of his deductions; don't worry he'll amend to get his proper lower rate).

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[StormyWeather]

You have hit the nail on the head with our tax code. Taxes A_R_E punishment. Really, they are. The government in fact knows that taxes are punitive, and approaches them with a carrot and stick mentality. Not all taxes may be intended to be punitive, but they all have a depressing effect on what they are levied upon.

Cigarette tax - punishment for smoking
Sales tax - punishment for consuming
alcohol tax - punishment for drinking
exise tax - penalty for moving money in a way the government doesn't like, or creating a product the government wants to discourage.

etc etc, and yes taxes do work as a punitive function. When the cost of anything is increased demand decreases, that's very elementary.

Don't be surprised then when people actually start seeing taxes as a punishment. Especially when they know no matter how much they pay in taxes the government will pay more than is collected. At the same time they see people with things they can't afford that abuse the system they pay into honestly. It's very easy to get frustrated.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Lehk228]

there is a reason i did not name one party

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Kwyj1b0]

The people in the middle (like me, and mine) get just about nothing from the government.

Let me guess: you live in isolation, using no roads, no government subsidized infrastructure, went to a private school (again, in the middle of nowhere), have enough ammo to keep yourself and your family safe, wouldn't ever call the fire department, don't rely on any offshoot of government research, etc.

I don't deny that government, like any large organization, has lots of inefficiencies that need to be cut down. And there are people who abuse the system to freeload. But, it isn't easy to live off food stamps, as one politician found out. And if people really start starving, there will be problems. The social safety nets exist not just for the poor, but they also benefit others higher up in the food chain (see how desperate a hungry man can be to survive).

If you have any solutions to really cut down inefficiencies and freeloaders, while making sure people who need help can get it, then I'm all ears. But this mantra of cut them out of the government teat and we will all be better off might not work as well as you'd expect.

Re: Can't America get its acts together ?

[siride]

Most of the debt is owed to people in the US or between branches of the government. China, for example, owns only about 8% of the debt. The foreign part of the equation is nearly irrelevant and needs to stop being brought up.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[eriks]

I think you mean the top 50% are getting tired of funding the bottom 50%. Everyone should pay something if they have an income. If you have no skin in the game you have no reason to care if taxes go up on everyone else and you will continue to vote yourself more money.

Poppycock and flapdoodle. There are (roughly) 10,000 individual human beings that control half of the worlds wealth and resources, 40 years ago, that same bracket had a strangle-hold on only one quarter of the wealth and resources. Anyone that can stand up and look the rest of us in the eye and say with a straight face that that is all just fine and dandy is either lying or deluded.

So long as we have an income tax (that's another conversation...) I say with a resounding YES: the ultra-rich (>10 million "net worth") should pay much more (as a percentage) of their income in taxes than do the working poor ($0 "net worth"). It's called progressive taxation, and it's ABSOLUTELY necessary so long as there is such a HUGE chasm between the top 0.1% and the bottom 50%, financially speaking. Granted, the culture of greed that dug that chasm is a social issue, and cannot be solved politically. Progressive taxation is treating the symptom.

The solution? Damned if I know. I do know it's going to get worse. Automation and other gains in productivity-efficiency are going to drive unemployment higher and higher. What are the working poor going to do when there is no longer any work for them? Ahh, Innovate! you say. Come up with new ideas? But guess what, there have been only a handful of "self-made men" in over half a century. All "innovation" is doled out in drips and drabs by the moneyed-interests. It would take a fucking miracle at this point for someone to come forward, out of nowhere (like happened repeatedly in the early 20th century) and make their mark on the world with a new invention or process. The system is stacked against it. Yeah, there's the dotcom thing that happened over a decade ago, but what have we (other than a few neat gadgets) to show for it? What upward mobility did it cause? Very little, and to a limited sector of the population. Who did it ultimately benefit? Mostly venture capitalists and giant financial firms.

I have (some) sympathy for the "middle rich", that "only" earn a quarter million a year. In that many of them probably did work very hard to get where they are. But guess what. They can still feed their families, afford a nice house, a couple of nice cars, and send their kids to good schools, even if their tax rate goes from 35% to 39% or whatever. It's not going to send them spiraling into poverty, or make them quit their jobs and go on welfare, that's patently absurd. If you want to give them tax-relief, let's give them huge tax credits for super-insulating their homes, home-solar energy projects and making better automotive choices, so they're investing in the future of humanity, instead of borrowing against it.

The ultra rich on the other hand are hoarding, plain and simple. In some cultures, in times of crisis, hoarding (food) is a shameful or even criminal act. We're all on this planet together. Some people seem to think that if they have enough money and power they can place themselves above everyone else, and don't have to actually share the planet with the rest of us. It's a *disease* and it's fucking celebrated, by people who should know better. Probably because they hope they can achieve the same station. Riiiiiight. Like that's gonna happen.

Sorry for the diatribe, but this kind of willful-ignorance really burns me.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Bodero]

What was it that Mitt Romney said he paid? 15%? Their tax rate might be 35% but they're not paying 35%

You are confusing income tax with capital gains taxes. Both parties have set up a tax code that does not tax the rich, but taxes those who are becoming rich. If Mitt Romney makes $0 in income and $0 in capital gains, but still has $500+ million in the bank, guess what his tax rate is? 0%.

If an entrepreneur who is putting his blood, sweat and tears into a company trying to become rich, and earns $1m last year, he's paying the highest rate.

The already-rich love this. That's why you hear Warren Buffet, et. al., saying tax rates should be higher - to make sure others don't get to the same level of wealth (and therefore, power) they are. They don't earn income.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Ksevio]

Or maybe just take away Churches as charities.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[drsmithy]

The problem is we continue to take from the top 50% and give it away to the bottom 50% who pay essentially nothing and in many cases get a refund check anyway for various credits. This does little to motivate anyone to try and make more money.

Then why isn't everyone just sitting around claiming welfare ? Why do the vast majority of people work and try to earn more money ? Why is this true even in countries with dramatically more liveable welfare systems than the USA's ?

I'll help you: It's true because reality is in direct conflict with right-wing rhetoric.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[Mitreya]

Defense spending is about 19% of the federal budget, compared to about 50% in the 1950s.

Are you counting the wars in Afganistan and Iraq? Or is it ok to ignore these expenses because they were passed as "emergency appropriations" instead of military budget?

Why don't we just stop defending ourselves entirely, then we'll all be dead in a year or so and with the money we saved we'll all be rich.

We are not actually defending ourselves against anyone at the moment, so your statement makes no sense
Why don't we keep the "defense" budget as is, but eliminate all offensive budget (specifically drone strikes and various external wars to name a few). This way we'll save a lot of money and will be as defended as we were before budget cuts.

A family cannot expect to improve finances by borrowing and investing into infrastructure.

The concept of a family business is entirely beyond your grasp.

Not at all, but all of the "monthly checkbook balancing" specifically referred to a family budget. A business (family business or not) does not necessarily balance its income/expenses every month, but instead has a longer-term plan. A family tries to balance their checkbook because their income is (roughly) constant.

Re:Can't America get its acts together ?

[bluefoxlucid]

It sounds like the government entitlement programs have destroyed your life. You took out a bunch of money at a very poor ROI. I never did that... went to college on my own dime, granted we cannot escape government money--almost all local colleges have some form of government money pumped into them, that's why in-state tuition costs like a quarter as much as out-of-state--but I didn't take any student loans. Didn't go past Associates degree.

I bought a house I"ll pay off in 3 years. I'll be out of debt within 5 years and comfortably bringing in 7 times more than needed to cover my mandatory expenses. I make around $60k. I am not awesome--oh, I kick all kinds of ass, but I'm continuously faced with people who are vastly more skilled and have better problem solving abilities than I do. I would expect I'm easy enough to replace.

How's it feel knowing you'll spend more money paying off your student loans than I've spent in my life, and yet I live in utter luxury and own a house and really will be out of debt--no mortgage, no rent, blank credit cards, no car loan--by the time I'm 30?

Those food stamps? The government saved you? Sword cuts both ways--look how you got where you are.

If trillion dollar coins are shaped like quarters

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

You could totally see the Secretary of the Treasury going down to the vending machine having done an all nighter to buy a candy bar. He ends up depositing six trillion dollar coins and all he gets is a Hundred Grand in return.

This is shear exhibitionism

[Required Snark]

This is 100% hot air. Instead of addressing real problems with real solutions, we are once again seeing the Congress bloviating instead of doing something.

I want to plant this unsavory image in your mind: Rep. Wilson has taking the podium in the House chamber, unzipped his pants, and is waving his dysfunctional penis at everyone in the room, along with the television audience on CSPAN. As each House member (yes, it is a pun) responds to him, they also expose themselves and start failing around so that everyone starts looking at their genitals. Soon they are all yelling and competing so that everyone will look at them more then any other idiot in the room.

This is pretty much what this proposal is all about: a mass outbreak of useless posturing that gets in the way of anything meaningful. I think we would, in fact, be better off if they were behaving like mentally disordered perverts. At least they would not be pretending to be "doing the peoples business", and would be acting out their true egomaniac personalities. The empty outcome would be identical with both activities, and exposing themselves in public would be much more honest.

Oblig. Simpson's reference

[Kargan]

(One of Castro's workers tells him some men with a trillion dollar bill are here to see him.)

Mr. Burns: Oh, so the island's not for sale, eh? Well, will you at least permit us to live in your socialist paradise?
Castro (in disbelief): You talking about Cuba?
Mr. Burns: All we ask is preferential treatment because of my fabulous wealth!
[Burns holds the trillion dollar bill up.]
Castro: May I see?
Mr. Burns: Ho ho ho, see with your eyes, not with your hands!
Castro: Please, we are all amigos here!
Homer: Mr. Burns, I *think* we can trust the president of *Cuba*...
Mr. Burns: [hands it to Castro, and waits a couple of seconds.] Now, give it back.
Castro: Give what back?
Mr. Burns: D'oh...

(The three men are on a crudely made raft in the middle of the ocean headed back home.)

Homer: It's hard to believe there's a place worse than America, but we found it!
Mr. Burns: Yes, I, too, feel renewed appreciation for the good old US of A. Oppression and harassment are a small price to pay to live in the land of the free.
Smithers: Sir, aren't you facing some serious jail time?
Mr. Burns: Well, if it's a crime to love one's country, then I'm guilty. And if it's a crime to steal a trillion dollars from our government and hand it over to communist Cuba, then I'm guilty of that too. And if it's a crime to bribe a jury, then so help me, I'll soon be guilty of that!
Homer: God bless America!

--"The Trouble with Trillions"

You know who the freeloaders are?

[tjstork]

Banks. People that charge interest on loans. It's just lazy rent seeking. But it adds no value to the economy and only serves as a means of concentrating capital into a few wealthy folks. Like, do you really believe that the the only people that work are the people that push buttons on Wall Street, right before they beg for a bailout. Yep, sounds about right to me. I think a 47% that makes sandwiches at Wawa does more useful work than a lot of people that work at brokerages.

Hyper inflation hurts the poor the most

[WarJolt]

If you print money, wages never keep up with the resulting inflation. If you are rich you have assets which will appreciate in value. The rich will never be hurt by these policies. Printing money is a secret tax on the poor and middle class.

Also, the really big thing

[Sycraft-fu]

Is the government can't save money. Part of a sound personal budget is saving money in good times so it can be spent in bad times. Fair enough, but the government can't do that. It is meaningless for the entity that mints money to "save" it. If the government printed, or rather simply changed the entry in a database, so they had more money, but then didn't put that money in to circulation and "saved" it, it would have the effect as if they'd done nothing. If instead they actually took money out of circulation, kept it when they collected taxes or what have you, it would lead to deflation which is a very, very bad thing.

So what does the government do? Well it borrows. When the government "saves" what it does instead is to pay down the amount of outstanding debt. Then when it "spends savings" it issues more debt.

That is how it works. You can't compare public accounts to private ones because they function different. You can't demand that the government run itself the same way you run your personal finances, because they aren't the same.

That isn't to say that the government doesn't need to keep borrowing reasonable, but it is very different than personal borrowing.

Re:Also, the really big thing

[Vancorps]

Ugh... if you stockpile gold then the cost of gold goes up and you have currency deflation. The gold standard was a hell of a lot more volatile than you suggest. Switching to our current system slowed the bubbles and bursts and stabilized our economy giving us a platform to grow. I hate hearing the old Ron Paul argument that the gold standard would end any problems. The current system isn't perfect but it's certainly a world better than the gold standard.

Just a side note:

[Taco Cowboy]

At the bottom of the page Slashdot gives me this piece of advice:

"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable." -- John Kenneth Galbraith