States declaring bankruptcy?

Void Main
Posts
17013
Joined
3/19/2008
Location
USA
Edited Date/Time 9/2/2015 2:04am
I don't think I much care for this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/economy/21bankruptcy.html

Path Is Sought for States to Escape Debt Burdens
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
Published: January 20, 2011

Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.

Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.

But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.

Beyond their short-term budget gaps, some states have deep structural problems, like insolvent pension funds, that are diverting money from essential public services like education and health care. Some members of Congress fear that it is just a matter of time before a state seeks a bailout, say bankruptcy lawyers who have been consulted by Congressional aides.

Bankruptcy could permit a state to alter its contractual promises to retirees, which are often protected by state constitutions, and it could provide an alternative to a no-strings bailout. Along with retirees, however, investors in a state’s bonds could suffer, possibly ending up at the back of the line as unsecured creditors.

“All of a sudden, there’s a whole new risk factor,” said Paul S. Maco, a partner at the firm Vinson & Elkins who was head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Municipal Securities during the Clinton administration.

For now, the fear of destabilizing the municipal bond market with the words “state bankruptcy” has proponents in Congress going about their work on tiptoe. No draft bill is in circulation yet, and no member of Congress has come forward as a sponsor, although Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, asked the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, about the possiblity in a hearing this month.

House Republicans, and Senators from both parties, have taken an interest in the issue, with nudging from bankruptcy lawyers and a former House speaker, Newt Gingrich, who could be a Republican presidential candidate. It would be difficult to get a bill through Congress, not only because of the constitutional questions and the complexities of bankruptcy law, but also because of fears that even talk of such a law could make the states’ problems worse.

Lawmakers might decide to stop short of a full-blown bankruptcy proposal and establish instead some sort of oversight panel for distressed states, akin to the Municipal Assistance Corporation, which helped New York City during its fiscal crisis of 1975.

Still, discussions about something as far-reaching as bankruptcy could give governors and others more leverage in bargaining with unionized public workers.

“They are readying a massive assault on us,” said Charles M. Loveless, legislative director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “We’re taking this very seriously.”

Mr. Loveless said he was meeting with potential allies on Capitol Hill, making the point that certain states might indeed have financial problems, but public employees and their benefits were not the cause. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report on Thursday warning against a tendency to confuse the states’ immediate budget gaps with their long-term structural deficits.

“States have adequate tools and means to meet their obligations,” the report stated.

No state is known to want to declare bankruptcy, and some question the wisdom of offering them the ability to do so now, given the jitters in the normally staid municipal bond market.

Slightly more than $25 billion has flowed out of mutual funds that invest in muni bonds in the last two months, according to the Investment Company Institute. Many analysts say they consider a bond default by any state extremely unlikely, but they also say that when politicians take an interest in the bond market, surprises are apt to follow.

Mr. Maco said the mere introduction of a state bankruptcy bill could lead to “some kind of market penalty,” even if it never passed. That “penalty” might be higher borrowing costs for a state and downward pressure on the value of its bonds. Individual bondholders would not realize any losses unless they sold.

But institutional investors in municipal bonds, like insurance companies, are required to keep certain levels of capital. And they might retreat from additional investments. A deeply troubled state could eventually be priced out of the capital markets.

“The precipitating event at G.M. was they were out of cash and had no ability to raise the capital they needed,” said Harry J. Wilson, the lone Republican on President Obama’s special auto task force, which led G.M. and Chrysler through an unusual restructuring in bankruptcy, financed by the federal government.

Mr. Wilson, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for New York State comptroller last year, has said he believes that New York and some other states need some type of a financial restructuring.

He noted that G.M. was salvaged only through an administration-led effort that Congress initially resisted, with legislators voting against financial assistance to G.M. in late 2008.

“Now Congress is much more conservative,” he said. “A state shows up and wants cash, Congress says no, and it will probably be at the last minute and it’s a real problem. That’s what I’m concerned about.”

Discussion of a new bankruptcy option for the states appears to have taken off in November, after Mr. Gingrich gave a speech about the country’s big challenges, including government debt and an uncompetitive labor market.

“We just have to be honest and clear about this, and I also hope the House Republicans are going to move a bill in the first month or so of their tenure to create a venue for state bankruptcy,” he said.

A few weeks later, David A. Skeel, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, published an article, “Give States a Way to Go Bankrupt,” in The Weekly Standard. It said thorny constitutional questions were “easily addressed” by making sure states could not be forced into bankruptcy or that federal judges could usurp states’ lawmaking powers.

“I have never had anything I’ve written get as much attention as that piece,” said Mr. Skeel, who said he had since been contacted by Republicans and Democrats whom he declined to name.

Mr. Skeel said it was possible to envision how bankruptcy for states might work by looking at the existing law for local governments. Called Chapter 9, it gives distressed municipalities a period of debt-collection relief, which they can use to restructure their obligations with the help of a bankruptcy judge.

Unfunded pensions become unsecured debts in municipal bankruptcy and may be reduced. And the law makes it easier for a bankrupt city to tear up its labor contracts than for a bankrupt company, said James E. Spiotto, head of the bankruptcy practice at Chapman & Cutler in Chicago.

The biggest surprise may await the holders of a state’s general obligation bonds. Though widely considered the strongest credit of any government, they can be treated as unsecured credits, subject to reduction, under Chapter 9.

Mr. Spiotto said he thought bankruptcy court was not a good avenue for troubled states, and he has designed an alternative called the Public Pension Funding Authority. It would have mandatory jurisdiction over states that failed to provide sufficient funding to their workers’ pensions or that were diverting money from essential public services.

“I’ve talked to some people from Congress, and I’m going to talk to some more,” he said. “This effort to talk about Chapter 9, I’m worried about it. I don’t want the states to have to pay higher borrowing costs because of a panic that they might go bankrupt. I don’t think it’s the right thing at all. But it’s the beginning of a dialog.”
|
1/20/2011 10:46pm
Unlike G.M., which has already repaid the federal gov, I see no chance in hell of a state ever repaying on its debt. Why? Look at the example that is being set by the federal government.
dcmx326
Posts
899
Joined
11/19/2010
Location
Washington, DC, USA
1/21/2011 4:13am
The US is almost at it's legal debt limit of 14.3 Trillion. Congress will have to pass a bill by March increasing our legal debt limit or the US fed will default as well. Don't see how the fed could bail out states when the fed is in deep shit as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/business/economy/07debt.html
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
1/21/2011 4:18am
The psychological effect of a US state defaulting on debt would be devastating to the economy at large, and I don't think the federal government would bail them out. State pension systems should have been solved long ago, and the states are going to have to bite the bullet and declare them insolvent, reduce pension payments slightly to existing retirees, and move existing employees to 401K type programs. These problems are solvable, they're just not easy - and that should be a warning for the federal government. The federal problems are much less painful to solve today than they will be in 10 years, just like the state problems were easier to solve 10 years ago. Serious people should be debating and implementing the bulk of the Obama debt commission recommendations (which has bipartisan support), even those parts of the plan that individuals find distasteful - because they're damn sure going to find the alternatives REAL distasteful in 10 years if they don't do anything now.

The Shop

Void Main
Posts
17013
Joined
3/19/2008
Location
USA
1/21/2011 5:31am
They've already raised my fuggin' taxes by 2%.
1/21/2011 9:25am
Void Main wrote:
They've already raised my fuggin' taxes by 2%.
I thought Obama promised that he wasn't raising taxes? Oh wait, you must be a billionaire.
dcmx326
Posts
899
Joined
11/19/2010
Location
Washington, DC, USA
1/21/2011 9:28am
Void Main wrote:
They've already raised my fuggin' taxes by 2%.
TripleFive wrote:
I thought Obama promised that he wasn't raising taxes? Oh wait, you must be a billionaire.
I think void is talking about his state raising his taxes, not the federal government.
1/21/2011 10:02am
Void Main wrote:
They've already raised my fuggin' taxes by 2%.
And how much less is every dollar worth now??
Void Main
Posts
17013
Joined
3/19/2008
Location
USA
1/21/2011 10:27am
Void Main wrote:
They've already raised my fuggin' taxes by 2%.
TripleFive wrote:
I thought Obama promised that he wasn't raising taxes? Oh wait, you must be a billionaire.
dcmx326 wrote:
I think void is talking about his state raising his taxes, not the federal government.
Yes, Illinois went form 3 to 5% for individuals and more for businesses:

http://www.bnd.com/2011/01/21/1559564/tax-increase-has-companies-on.html

Friday, Jan. 21, 2011
Beelman Truck Co. owner on tax hike: Illinois is 'one of the worst states to do business'
BY WILL BUSS - News-Democrat

ALORTON -- Sam Beelman has dealt with taxing issues as an Illinois-based business before, but the recent round of income tax hikes may force him to move more of his trucking business out of the state, he says.

"I think it's ridiculous," said Beelman, who owns and operates Beelman Truck Co. in Alorton. "We will try to move whatever business we can out of this state."

Aside from the high diesel fuel costs that his business has had to pay in transporting goods from and through Illinois, Beelman and other in-state businesses are facing a 30 percent increase in the state's corporate income tax, from 7.3 percent to 9.5 percent. The General Assembly last week also approved a 66 percent individual income tax rate increase from 3 percent to 5 percent.
Beelman Truck Co. tractor-trailer
Beelman Truck Co. tractor-trailer

* Story: Jimmy John's founder: Taxes may force move out of Illinois
* Story: Gov. Quinn defends massive Ill. tax hike; says it's important 'not to be a fiscal basket case'
* Story: 'Totally outrageous': Metro-east residents speak out on tax hike

Both bills were passed in the final hours of the last legislative session, which ended Jan. 12, and have been signed by Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn.

The tax hikes had been pushed by Quinn as a way to combat the state's financial crisis. Illinois faces a projected $15 billion budget deficit, at least $80 million in unfunded pension liability and more than $8 billion of unpaid bills. The tax increases were passed mostly along party lines with Democrats leading the charge in both chambers of the legislature.

Beelman said he is well-aware of the challenging and sometimes unfriendly business climate in Illinois.

"It's one of the worst states there is to do business," Beelman said.

Beelman is a century-old business that has its roots in St. Libory. Today, the trucking company has operations based throughout Illinois, Missouri and Indiana and transports general and dry bulk commodities, such as coal and gravel, through most of the country.

Sam Beelman's not the only one who's upset with Illinois' tax increase.

The leaders at Allsup Inc., a Belleville-based business that helps clients maximize their access to Social Security disability insurance and Medicare, are also dismayed with the increasingly cost of doing business in Illinois. However, company spokeswoman Mary Dale Walters said there are no plans to move.

"Like every other business in the state of Illinois, we're disappointed that this has occurred," Walters said. "We really haven't completed any analysis of what the impact will be in the end. We're not going anywhere. Jim (Allsup) built the business here, and it continues to grow here. We will add (90) more jobs here, and we had our best year ever last year."

The overall economy is forcing a century-old Highland business to scale back its work force and operations. Wicks Pipe Organ Co., which has been in business since 1906, is downsizing from 30 to 10 employees.

Chief Operating Officer Mark Wick said most customers, which include many churches, are opting to repair their instruments instead of buying new ones. Aside from the economy, he said Illinois' higher taxes will amplify the challenges the family owned company is facing.

"We're going to scale down in order to compensate for the economy," Wick said. "The taxes obviously don't help. Illinois is now one of the worst states to do business in, in addition to being the worst state in the country for insurance rates."

The tax hikes moved Arlington Heights-native and Jimmy John's sandwich shop chain founder Jimmy John Liautaud to announce earlier this week that he has already packed and left his home state to reside in Florida. Liautaud said he is considering relocating his Champaign-based business to a new headquarters in the Sunshine State.

Wick said his company has had to lay off employees before. For instance, he said the company had to let workers go during World War II because materials the company used were redirected toward the war effort. He said the new higher taxes in Illinois weighed into the company's latest move.
1/21/2011 10:32am
Here in California ol Jerry Brown says everyone needs to sacrifice. Now I'm contemplating packing up my family and my business and heading to Idaho.
flarider
Posts
25496
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Daytona Beach, FL, USA
1/21/2011 10:44am
No state income tax in Florida


1/21/2011 10:51am
flarider wrote:
No state income tax in Florida


That's funny because my wife works for Disney World and 40% of my business is from Brandon and Ocala. But, I like mountains.
DDub8
Posts
245
Joined
8/17/2006
Location
Austin, TX, USA
1/21/2011 12:34pm
TripleFive wrote:
Unlike G.M., which has already repaid the federal gov, I see no chance in hell of a state ever repaying on its debt. Why? Look at...
Unlike G.M., which has already repaid the federal gov, I see no chance in hell of a state ever repaying on its debt. Why? Look at the example that is being set by the federal government.
You may want to check the math on GM paying its loan in full. The loan was only $6.7B of the ~$50B the US Govt provided with the bigger piece being a 60% equity position in the company. GM actually just gave back some of the money to repay the loan. Then, GM has an IPO that dilutes the US Govt's holdings to about 33% of the company and uses most of that to meet the pension obligations. Can the federal government take an ownership in a state?

Knuck has it right, we're paying for the sins of our fathers and the greed of the unions/public employees when negotiating retirement benefits.
Void Main
Posts
17013
Joined
3/19/2008
Location
USA
1/21/2011 12:41pm
You guys with no state income taxes can suck it.
1/21/2011 1:11pm
I do like Gardnerville.
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
1/21/2011 1:35pm
Void Main wrote:
You guys with no state income taxes can suck it.
Texas has no state income tax, but property taxes are outrageous - twice as much as California or Oregon, to name two states with high income taxes. And when you retire and have minimal income, it's much better to live in a state with an income tax and low property taxes. But no matter, people are going to whine either way - the best thing is just pay your taxes and get on with your life.
Void Main
Posts
17013
Joined
3/19/2008
Location
USA
1/21/2011 2:05pm
I guess I don't really have much of a choice.
Febuary
Posts
26
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
USA
1/21/2011 5:49pm
dcmx326 wrote:
The US is almost at it's legal debt limit of 14.3 Trillion. Congress will have to pass a bill by March increasing our legal debt limit...
The US is almost at it's legal debt limit of 14.3 Trillion. Congress will have to pass a bill by March increasing our legal debt limit or the US fed will default as well. Don't see how the fed could bail out states when the fed is in deep shit as well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/business/economy/07debt.html
The fed has other plans it appears.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41198789

Accounting Tweak Could Save Fed From Losses

Concerns that the Federal Reserve could suffer losses on its massive bond holdings may have driven the central bank to adopt a little-noticed accounting change with huge implications: it makes insolvency much less likely.

The significant shift was tucked quietly into the Fed's weekly report on its balance sheet and phrased in such technical terms that it was not even reported by financial media when originally announced on Jan. 6.

But the new rules have slowly begun to catch the attention of market analysts. Many are at once surprised that the Fed can set its own guidelines, and also relieved that the remote but dangerous possibility that the world's most powerful central bank might need to ask the U.S. Treasury or its member banks for money is now more likely to be averted.

"Could the Fed go broke? The answer to this question was 'Yes,' but is now 'No,'" said Raymond Stone, managing director at Stone & McCarthy in Princeton, New Jersey. "An accounting methodology change at the central bank will allow the Fed to incur losses, even substantial losses, without eroding its capital."

The change essentially allows the Fed to denote losses by the various regional reserve banks that make up the Fed system as a liability to the Treasury rather than a hit to its capital. It would then simply direct future profits from Fed operations toward that liability.

This enhances transparency by providing clearer, more frequent, snapshots of the central bank's finances, analysts say. The bonus: the number can now turn negative without affecting the central bank's underlying financial condition.

"Any future losses the Fed may incur will now show up as a negative liability as opposed to a reduction in Fed capital, thereby making a negative capital situation technically impossible," said Brian Smedley, a rates strategist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch and a former New York Fed staffer.

"The timing of the change is not coincidental, as politicians and market participants alike have expressed concerns since the announcement (of a second round of asset buys) about the possibility of Fed 'insolvency' in a scenario where interest rates rise significantly," Smedley and his colleague Priya Misra wrote in a research note.
Rooster
Posts
4432
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Edmonton, CA
1/21/2011 6:01pm
Great, now the fed is cooking the books!

When it comes to money, you either have enough or you don't. No amount of accounting wizardry can make the debts disappear when the collectors come calling. It might keep them at the curb for a month, but it doesn't create money you don't have.
dcmx326
Posts
899
Joined
11/19/2010
Location
Washington, DC, USA
1/21/2011 6:25pm
That is hilarious

"Any future losses the Fed may incur will now show up as a negative liability as opposed to a reduction in Fed capital, thereby making a negative capital situation technically impossible,"

I should go to my bank and say, I don't have debts anymore, I want to classify them as negative liabilities. Changing the semantics of the situation does not change the reality of the situation.
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
1/21/2011 8:22pm
The Federal Reserve makes a great centerpiece for conspiracy theories because it is both powerful and seemingly incomprehensible. But the fact is, it's doing the same things today that it's been doing for the last 100 years, and in fact, the Federal Reserve made $45 billion in profits that were transferred to the Treasury last year. It capitalizes banks and invests in various bonds and securities and makes a profit from it; then those banks capitalize businesses, and the banks make a profit; the businesses then (hopefully) use the money to produce goods and services, creating both profit for the business and jobs; the people who have jobs buy things, creating a demand for goods and services. It has probably the most-audited set of books in America, and like any other, it's easy to question certain moves but as long as it's continuing to keep inflation under control, manage the value of the dollar so that we can both import and export, and simultaneously turn a profit (or at least break even), then it's doing its job. It's true that certain Federal Reserve activities are outside the audit power, but those pertain to interactions with foreign central banks and basic monetary policies, which are more opinions and projections than auditable transactions.

People looking for a boogeyman are always talking about the Federal Reserve "printing money" - well, that's it's job. Managing the supply of currency to banks is its primary function, and the "printing of money" is the function of the Treasury, which works with the Fed to distribute the money. If they're "printing too much", the value of the dollar gets too low and Americans can't afford to buy foreign goods; if they're "printing too little", the value of the dollar gets too high and we can't export our goods. There's no mystery in that basic function. There's no conspiracy. There's no boogeyman.
Sherwood
Posts
3682
Joined
5/12/2010
Location
USA
1/22/2011 2:02pm
Spending has been out of control at every level of government for to long. I'm waiting for the day that government at all levels understands the importance of not spending more than you make. If you can't afford it don't buy it.
1/22/2011 2:30pm
flarider wrote:
No state income tax in Florida


Sounds like Florida doesn't not have any problems like other states. No state income tax must mean that people in Florida make and keep more money than say....people in NYS.
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
1/22/2011 3:02pm
Sherwood wrote:
Spending has been out of control at every level of government for to long. I'm waiting for the day that government at all levels understands the...
Spending has been out of control at every level of government for to long. I'm waiting for the day that government at all levels understands the importance of not spending more than you make. If you can't afford it don't buy it.
Didn't the Reaganomics theory state that it didn't matter what deficits were as long as taxes were low? Isn't that the reason that the only president to balance a budget in 30 years was a Democrat? And isn't that the theory under which George W Bush cut taxes twice and ran an average spending deficit of 720 billion dollars a year for 8 years?
Sherwood
Posts
3682
Joined
5/12/2010
Location
USA
1/23/2011 8:57am
Sherwood wrote:
Spending has been out of control at every level of government for to long. I'm waiting for the day that government at all levels understands the...
Spending has been out of control at every level of government for to long. I'm waiting for the day that government at all levels understands the importance of not spending more than you make. If you can't afford it don't buy it.
WhKnuckle wrote:
Didn't the Reaganomics theory state that it didn't matter what deficits were as long as taxes were low? Isn't that the reason that the only president...
Didn't the Reaganomics theory state that it didn't matter what deficits were as long as taxes were low? Isn't that the reason that the only president to balance a budget in 30 years was a Democrat? And isn't that the theory under which George W Bush cut taxes twice and ran an average spending deficit of 720 billion dollars a year for 8 years?
I agree. Let's never learn from the mistakes of past presidents and hold the new ones to a higher standard.
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
1/23/2011 9:13am
Sherwood wrote:
Spending has been out of control at every level of government for to long. I'm waiting for the day that government at all levels understands the...
Spending has been out of control at every level of government for to long. I'm waiting for the day that government at all levels understands the importance of not spending more than you make. If you can't afford it don't buy it.
WhKnuckle wrote:
Didn't the Reaganomics theory state that it didn't matter what deficits were as long as taxes were low? Isn't that the reason that the only president...
Didn't the Reaganomics theory state that it didn't matter what deficits were as long as taxes were low? Isn't that the reason that the only president to balance a budget in 30 years was a Democrat? And isn't that the theory under which George W Bush cut taxes twice and ran an average spending deficit of 720 billion dollars a year for 8 years?
Sherwood wrote:
I agree. Let's never learn from the mistakes of past presidents and hold the new ones to a higher standard.
That's exactly the point of the president's budget balancing panel, that created a bipartisan plan that was approved by 11 of the 18 delegates, and which will cut 4 trillion dollars out of the deficit over 10 years. It is a tough package - cuts in EVERYONE'S sacred cows along with a new income tax structure that lowers rates but cuts hundreds of deductions - but that's what it's going to take. Now it's time to see if Congress is serious about this, or if they just want to continue to pander to their bases and continually just go out there and run for reelection all the time. We'll see which ones are public servants and which ones are just politicians.
Sherwood
Posts
3682
Joined
5/12/2010
Location
USA
1/23/2011 9:59am
WhKnuckle wrote:
Didn't the Reaganomics theory state that it didn't matter what deficits were as long as taxes were low? Isn't that the reason that the only president...
Didn't the Reaganomics theory state that it didn't matter what deficits were as long as taxes were low? Isn't that the reason that the only president to balance a budget in 30 years was a Democrat? And isn't that the theory under which George W Bush cut taxes twice and ran an average spending deficit of 720 billion dollars a year for 8 years?
Sherwood wrote:
I agree. Let's never learn from the mistakes of past presidents and hold the new ones to a higher standard.
WhKnuckle wrote:
That's exactly the point of the president's budget balancing panel, that created a bipartisan plan that was approved by 11 of the 18 delegates, and which...
That's exactly the point of the president's budget balancing panel, that created a bipartisan plan that was approved by 11 of the 18 delegates, and which will cut 4 trillion dollars out of the deficit over 10 years. It is a tough package - cuts in EVERYONE'S sacred cows along with a new income tax structure that lowers rates but cuts hundreds of deductions - but that's what it's going to take. Now it's time to see if Congress is serious about this, or if they just want to continue to pander to their bases and continually just go out there and run for reelection all the time. We'll see which ones are public servants and which ones are just politicians.
Too bad none of that helps government at lower levels.
WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
1/23/2011 11:48am
Sherwood wrote:
I agree. Let's never learn from the mistakes of past presidents and hold the new ones to a higher standard.
WhKnuckle wrote:
That's exactly the point of the president's budget balancing panel, that created a bipartisan plan that was approved by 11 of the 18 delegates, and which...
That's exactly the point of the president's budget balancing panel, that created a bipartisan plan that was approved by 11 of the 18 delegates, and which will cut 4 trillion dollars out of the deficit over 10 years. It is a tough package - cuts in EVERYONE'S sacred cows along with a new income tax structure that lowers rates but cuts hundreds of deductions - but that's what it's going to take. Now it's time to see if Congress is serious about this, or if they just want to continue to pander to their bases and continually just go out there and run for reelection all the time. We'll see which ones are public servants and which ones are just politicians.
Sherwood wrote:
Too bad none of that helps government at lower levels.
If that process will balance budgets at high levels, it'll balance them at lower levels as well. The thing that won't balance budgets, at any level, is leaders who are afraid to tell the public the truth, to explain what needs to be done and why, and let the chips fall where they may. The problem with budget-balancing, on any level, isn't figuring out how to make it happen, it's finding the courage to be honest about it. And the people have a role in that, too - if politicians feel like their constituents are incapable of behaving like adults and are unwilling to participate in an honest discussion about options and costs, then the public is equally at fault.
Sherwood
Posts
3682
Joined
5/12/2010
Location
USA
1/23/2011 3:27pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
That's exactly the point of the president's budget balancing panel, that created a bipartisan plan that was approved by 11 of the 18 delegates, and which...
That's exactly the point of the president's budget balancing panel, that created a bipartisan plan that was approved by 11 of the 18 delegates, and which will cut 4 trillion dollars out of the deficit over 10 years. It is a tough package - cuts in EVERYONE'S sacred cows along with a new income tax structure that lowers rates but cuts hundreds of deductions - but that's what it's going to take. Now it's time to see if Congress is serious about this, or if they just want to continue to pander to their bases and continually just go out there and run for reelection all the time. We'll see which ones are public servants and which ones are just politicians.
Sherwood wrote:
Too bad none of that helps government at lower levels.
WhKnuckle wrote:
If that process will balance budgets at high levels, it'll balance them at lower levels as well. The thing that won't balance budgets, at any level...
If that process will balance budgets at high levels, it'll balance them at lower levels as well. The thing that won't balance budgets, at any level, is leaders who are afraid to tell the public the truth, to explain what needs to be done and why, and let the chips fall where they may. The problem with budget-balancing, on any level, isn't figuring out how to make it happen, it's finding the courage to be honest about it. And the people have a role in that, too - if politicians feel like their constituents are incapable of behaving like adults and are unwilling to participate in an honest discussion about options and costs, then the public is equally at fault.
With the current mindset these politicians have where they feel entitled to super nice offices and other unnecessary expenses as well as the mindset that a republican/democrat did it in the past so it's ok for them to do it will make any such ideas fall short.

They'll do stunts here and there to make people think they get it to get re-elected, but nothing short of extermination of these proffesional politicians will fix it.

Post a reply to: States declaring bankruptcy?

The Latest