Sunset laws, many of us have heard of them but not many of us know about them.They are not enacted because it would cause our politicians to have to do work.
If anyone is paying attention our federal lawmakers put in less days of work than they have ever put in.
A sunset law would mean that Social Security would come up for reauthorization every 15 or 20 years depending on how long you want the sunset to be. I don't want Social Security not to be reenacted. But I am a firm believer that even the best program can be made better. With Social Security being such a political cow that can never be touched, a sunset law would mean that it would have to be touched. Improvements would have to be made. We know now that funding is coming up short and that would have to be addressed. Since it has been a Republican position that we should not have social programs like Social Security, then they would have a chance to end it as we know it and put in something better or have nothing. A change could be made, depending on your view it could be better or worse.
Every funding bill would have to get reauthorized. Every government official would have his job scrutinized every 15 years. Just like in business or as I call it “the real world” management would be expected to perform to certain standards. If they do not then the program that they are administering would be ended and their jobs ended with the program.
Sounds like a change that may cause some problems but long term could produce a better government that represents the will of the public.
3 comments:
Ronald Reagan put it best:
"Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"
Sunset laws do not work, and are unnecessary anyway.
1) We can axe or reform any program at any time.
2) Just because we vote on programs doesn't mean we have an opportunity to make them go away. The example of rent control in NYC is a classic example-- it keeps getting reauthorized. Even Republican politicians are afraid to touch it, given no one wants the journalists reporting sob stories of elderly people who have to move. The alternative is worse-- rent controls create limitations on the supply of housing, contributing to housing scarcity in the NY area. And I thought liberals with their big hearts cared about the homeless and the poor!
But the Democrats were never about helping the poor. It is all about government power. Socialists gain power by making as many people dependent upon the State as possible. It is the Democrat raison d'etre, their reason for being.
Here we go with the Democratic BS again. Explain why the Republicans that have been in control for the last 8 years have grown the government.
Should it not have shrunk?
Why would the Republicans who have been in charge and despise the deficit have the largest EVER projected for next year?
Government power?? With Bush abusing presidential power how can you make a claim that Democrats want government power?
You miss my point. Having to vote or not vote on a bill makes people responsible. It gives the controlling party a chance to make things better.
If you're looking to keep government spending under control, don't vote for the Democrats.
Here's a graph that shows where the deficits are coming from. They're going to get much, much worse as more baby boomers enter retirement.
Bush did attempt to streamline social security, one of the fastest growing entitlement programs in Washington. He did not have a big enough majority in Congress to pass it.
Debt as a percentage of GDP is in the upper 60%s, close to where it was in 1992-- and keep in mind, this is while fighting two wars at once. The Democrats want to grow social security, grow Medicare, and add many new programs on top of it. Pelosi and her new Politburo, for example, want regressive taxes to pay for the healthcare of families making up to 80K a year. Like the school system, this is about expanding government power, and nothing more.
Post a Comment