Billy wrote:
In article
,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Don Homuth dhomuthoneatcomcast.net@ wrote:


... Heck I would actually agree with a tax cut if
the quid pro quo was a balanced budget amendment or some such.

The BBA would not necessarily result in a tax cut. Quite the
opposite is equally likely.


Ooops my bad. I meant tax HIKE if the quid pro quo... sorry



You can't
trust a Congress of any stripe to not spend too much money.

Which federal expenditures that You approve of are You willing to
cut or eliminate?

Same question as before.

Which I answered before. Keep the increases at or below inflation
and studies from the mid-70s forward have all shown you balance the
budget within 5 years and start working on the surpluses after that.

I would also cut-off PBS. They have more affiliates than any of the
networks. Some cities have more than one. Another study from the
mid-80s suggests you could rid of the extra affiliates, sell off the
licenses and endow CPB.
I'd also turn all roads over to the states (although that would
also include a tax cut, so that the states could increase their gas
taxes to offset). They are spending more on roads than the road
taxes (such as gas tax, etc) bring in and it is the most abused area
of earmarks.

Make the taxes proportional to the benefit received from society. The
more you make, the greater the percentage you pay.

Doesnt work when those who need federal assistence are those who have
the least capacity to pay, most obviously with Medicaid and Medicare.