No offense, heikstheo. That was just my opinion- and I'm no expert.

Well, it's really quite simple. When government bonds mature, pay them off and don't borrow any more. I believe that it was pointed out by some minor party candidate or other that selling off all federal lands would eliminate the defecit.

My personal beliefs, is to cut taxes across the board to generate revenue. Actually cut spending not just spending 8 dollars more instead of 12 dollars more, but actually spending 20 dollars less then the year before. Then I would destroy many bureaucracies and transfer many others to the states, where they would best be used. I would cut threw as much red tape as I possibly could and begin giving power back to the states and to the people. I'd push for a Constitutional Amendment for a Balance Budget Amendment, and a Amendment where the President had a Item Line Veto, that could be over ruled with 2/3Rd's a majority in congress.

__________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

I agree about the line-item veto. I don't think that would trim more than a tiny fraction of the fat, but it's practical and it takes away the excuse that the bill had to be either accepted or rejected in its entirety.

__________________
Man up.

Since the regular old veto requires a 2/3 majority for override, how is having a line-item veto with 2/3 majority going to make any difference?

Simple that way Congress could get support to over ride one part of the bill that the President changed and place in its own amount instead of having to over ride every change. Its doubtful that Congress can get 2/3rds majority on any issue, none the less a entire spending bill. But you could get 2/3rds a majority to over ride a certain veto on a certain line of the bill. Lets say that there was a Conservative Congress( I know far stretch of the truth) that they decided to actually cut spending by 25 percent over 4 years. The President being a liberal but not wanting to be hurt in the polls or future election, veto's it and changes it to a cut in spending to 12 percent over 12 years. If Congress could get a 2/3rds majority they would be able to change that part of the bill back to 25 percent over 4 years. The key to this would be, that lets say the Liberal President angry at Congressmen A from the state of F decided to cut a pork part of the same bill the would oh idk build a bridge to lets say nowhere. Now the Conservative Congress didn't want it in there to begin with, so they are happy that this part of the bill was dropped. Now if they didn't have the ability to over ride one certain line item veto, and could only over ride all parts that where vetoed, that would be that they would indeed get to bring spending back down to 25 percent over 4 years like they wanted, but also that the bridge would be back on the bill. This would keep everything checked perfectly in line, and keep power evenly distributed, well still being practical.

__________________
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

Where have all the Conservatives Gone?

The point is that the Congress currently needs a 2/3 to override a veto of an entire budget bill (or any other bill, for that matter). Therefore, requiring a 2/3 override for a line-item veto is no more difficult than for any other veto. If you want your line-item veto to have any teeth to it, you need to require a higher percentage than normal for an over-ride. Moreover, think on this for a minute: many people who think such-and-such idea is good when one party is in power suddenly decide that the same such-and-such idea is no longer such a good idea when another party is in power.

Deficit spreadsheet is finished and available at http://www.politicalforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=12989

__________________
Man up.

That's not really true. It's probably easier to get a 2/3 majority to override a veto of an entire bill than it is to get a 2/3 majority to override a veto of one line that may not have broad support, or not be worth the override effort.

I thought the line-item veto was a good idea (and effective) when Clinton had it, and even though I think Bush is a dunderhead I think it would be a good idea for him to have it, too. The only people who don't like it are Congress, because it limits their pork-larding and horse-trading abilities. Which is why the authority lapsed.

__________________
Man up.

It would be the same 2/3 majority! How could one be more difficult to get than the other? It wouldn't be! If you want the line-item veto to have any teeth, require a 3/4 majority for override. Otherwise, nothing will change. That is, of course, assuming that the line-item veto is actually a good idea, which perceptions will change as political power shifts betwwen one party and the other.