Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

What kind of reasonable checks and balances could be placed on the finances and spending of the US Government that would actually be successful?  Something like the debt can not be more than XX% of GDP?  Or maybe even a balanced budget amendment.  I tend to favor something like a balanced budget amendment, because it truly forces the government to live within it's means, and if something is really super important they will have to either raise taxes or cut spending somewhere else.  We are actually required to have a balanced budget here in Texas, and the state has a surplus that is rather large (several tens of billions last I checked).   

Most state Constitutions mandate balanced budgets not only for the State but also it's political subdivisions.  

Curious side note, these restrictions were largely a product of the canal era.  The Erie Canal which I've mentioned a few times in the history thread was unbelievably successful and paid for itself in just a few years for the State of New York.  Other States naturally tried to copy that example and there was an explosion of Canal Building all across the United States.  What canal proponents failed to notice was that the first public steam railroad started operations in 1825, the same year that the Erie Canal opened.  Canals were immensely important and very lucrative . . . until Railroads replaced them and that happened in just a few years.  Several states very nearly went bankrupt due to overspending on Canals that were obsolete before they even opened.  In Ohio, for example, they built a canal from Toledo (Lake Erie) to Cincinnati (Ohio River).  But for Railroads, this would have been an enormously successful economic endeavor but the Railroads put it out of business before it was completed.  Seriously, they were still constructing the unfinished canal at one end even AFTER the other end had been closed.  

I work in local Government and we are subject to Ohio's Constitutional limitation on debt.  There is voted and unvoted debt and both are limited constitutionally to a function of property values.  Additionally, Ohio Governments cannot borrow operationally (there is a limited exception for cash flow purposes).  We can only borrow to purchase capital assets and the term of the borrowing has to be shorter than the reasonably life expectancy of the assets purchased.  Ie, you can't issue 30 year bonds for cars.  

Applying this to the US Government would be incredibly complex.  For one thing the Federal Government can simply print money so how would you prevent future Congresses/Administrations from using that as a work-around for any Constitutional debt limitation?  

Secondly, you would HAVE TO have at least a temporary ability to go over for calamities (like WWII).  You could probably do that with some kind of super-majority required in Congress but it isn't easy and you'd end up with some hold out getting a massive windfall of Federal Spending in his/her district.  

Third, it definitely need to be based on percentage of GDP but there is a bit of a problem there.  GDP changes.  The big spikes in Debt as a percentage of GDP in 2008-2009 and in 2020 were partially because debt increased but they were also because GDP shrunk.  

Yes, and no. 

Sure the general fund was running deficits and the SS surplus was used to finance those deficits but if the SS tax had been higher (assuming no change in General Fund spending) the overall deficits would have been smaller and the overall debt today would be smaller. 

Sorry. I thought we were discussing entitlements. Social Security is ostensibly a program intended to be funded by the payroll tax. You asked why nobody for the past ~40 years has done anything to fix the system since the last major change in 1983. 

My answer--which I think is valid--is that the payroll tax was fully funding the payment of Social Security benefits up until 2020. Therefore raising the tax prior to that point would not have done anything for Social Security. 

If you're asking why nobody has done anything since? Well, probably because they want to create a false deadline of when the SSTF is getting closer to exhaustion, because they don't want the political pain of doing it now. I think we'd both agree that's just going to cause more pain, and that the payroll tax--the funding source of the program--should be aligned with the benefits the program is paying out. 

----------------------------

Now, if your question is... Why did nobody raise payroll taxes earlier to continue the lie that those payroll taxes are only 'intended to be paying for Social Security' and actually make it subsidize the general fund even more so Congress could lie about how much the total debt/deficit is? 

To that, I have no answer. 

My opinion in general is that if you have a program that is very specific, and you have a taxation scheme that exists for the purpose of funding that program... Funds should be used for that program, and not something else. I.e. if you have a gas excise tax to fund transportation projects, the revenues of that excise tax should largely fund... transportation projects. If you have a payroll tax which exists to fund Social Security, that tax should largely fund... Social Security. 

So my question back to you is: "Why would you expect them to raise the payroll tax prior to 2020, when Social Security benefits were still being FULLY funded by the payroll tax, instead of raising income taxes, or corporate taxes, or any other government revenue source, to be used for general fund expenditures?"

Sorry. I thought we were discussing entitlements. Social Security is ostensibly a program intended to be funded by the payroll tax. You asked why nobody for the past ~40 years has done anything to fix the system since the last major change in 1983.

My answer--which I think is valid--is that the payroll tax was fully funding the payment of Social Security benefits up until 2020. Therefore raising the tax prior to that point would not have done anything for Social Security.

If you're asking why nobody has done anything since? Well, probably because they want to create a false deadline of when the SSTF is getting closer to exhaustion, because they don't want the political pain of doing it now. I think we'd both agree that's just going to cause more pain, and that the payroll tax--the funding source of the program--should be aligned with the benefits the program is paying out.

----------------------------

Now, if your question is... Why did nobody raise payroll taxes earlier to continue the lie that those payroll taxes are only 'intended to be paying for Social Security' and actually make it subsidize the general fund even more so Congress could lie about how much the total debt/deficit is?

To that, I have no answer.

My opinion in general is that if you have a program that is very specific, and you have a taxation scheme that exists for the purpose of funding that program... Funds should be used for that program, and not something else. I.e. if you have a gas excise tax to fund transportation projects, the revenues of that excise tax should largely fund... transportation projects. If you have a payroll tax which exists to fund Social Security, that tax should largely fund... Social Security.

So my question back to you is: "Why would you expect them to raise the payroll tax prior to 2020, when Social Security benefits were still being FULLY funded by the payroll tax, instead of raising income taxes, or corporate taxes, or any other government revenue source, to be used for general fund expenditures?"

I get where you are coming from on taxes for a specific purpose being used for that purpose but . . . Based on your prior comments, I'm fairly certain that you agree with this:
Money is fungible and the Federal Government exists as a single unit.  Therefore, whether a tax is a payroll tax ostensibly to fund SS Benefits or a Gas Excise Tax ostensibly to fund transportation projects or an Income Tax on either Corporations or Individuals ostensibly to fund General Government Operations the money all goes into the Federal Government "pot".  Similarly, whether an expenditure is a SS Check or a payment to @847badgerfan 's Civil Engineering Conglomerate to build a bridge or payroll for Congress the money all comes out of the Federal Government "pot".  

Based on that, I agree conceptually that SS Taxes should be in a "Lock Box" to only be used for SS Expenditures, Gas Excise Taxes should be in a "Lock Box" to only be used for transportation projects, and Income Tax should be available for general operations, as a practical matter it makes no difference.  The Federal Government collects a certain amount, spends a certain amount, and the difference is a surplus if positive or a deficit if negative.  

Had they collected additional SS Taxes for the last 40 years the deficits would have been smaller and the debt today would be smaller.  

Had they collected additional SS Taxes for the last 40 years the deficits would have been smaller and the debt today would be smaller. 

OR:

Had they collected additional SS Taxes for the last 40 years they would have spent more and the deficits today would be exactly the same and the debt today would be exactly the same.  Or worse.

In the realm of counterfactuals, you'll never get me to give benefit of the doubt to the government or its spending habits.  

Had the SST got in the market in 1965 it would have a $13T surplus today.

The gov't, just like large corporations, rely on the ignorance of the masses to do whatever the hell it wants.  Just big piles of money laying around and being moved around, just to do whatever gets them elected again.  

At least the gov't sometimes does it to benefit the masses.  Sometimes.