Redstate

is always a good one.  Ending frivolous lawsuits is a winner.  Itt may not resonate in today's political climate, though.

How about a cut and then a cap for gasoline taxes.

Trucker gets angry.  I think the truck is safe.

http://community.theolympian.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album
430&id=protest01

I've long advocating posting the price of the gasoline without tax included - just like every other price on every other item we purchase.  Post the price as $2.25/gal and when the customer learns how much the total gas bill is with taxes we'll see a pretty good tax revolt.

btw, from the original post, isn't that how a Democrat defines a 'wedge issue' - something that is popular with a large majority of the American public not with the vocal Democratic base?  

roles.  Complete purge of dead bodies and relocated bodies, re-register all voters.

I'd like every five years, every 10 years after reapportionment would be OK too.

Russia has, along with France, been one of the most strident critics of US foreign policy in the Middle East. They accuse us of arrogance, of unilaterelalism, of insensitivity to cultural sensibilities.

Gee, you'd think we had forbade a gay rights protest and subsequently condoned beatings of the protesters.

Not that Russia had much moral authority before, but this would, I hope, put paid to the government's street cred on cultural sensitivity.

Not to moby or anything, but shouldn't this be an issue for the states?

It's a good idea to look for this kind of issue, but not at all cost.

voter registration schemes as well?  (motorvoter)

on more of the issues of the day if their primary news sources didn't lean so far left. Sometimes it seems they consciously try to sway the public toward leftist causes.

Here's a prime example. To me this global warming article reads like a collusion between leftists academics and leftist journalists to scare the public into believing the global warming doomcriers:

Study: global warming boosts poison ivy

Seems some "researchers" at Duke University have "discovered" that poison ivy grows faster in an atmosphere enriched with carbon dioxide. Well, duh! It's a plant! Any plant would thrive under those conditions. And the Associated Press dutifully reports their "findings".

There is nothing in the article to indicate that poison ivy would gain any advantage over other plants. Why did they choose that particular noxious plant? Scare value. Seems like the article is written in such a way as to make the reader believe that the world will be overrun with poison ivy in a mere 44 years. Scare the readers into supporting leftist efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

And the readers who believe this hooey are that much more poorly informed.

Thanks for this Blanton:

mine:

Term Limits

Rescind No Child Left Behind

Rescind McCain/Feingold

End Domestic Subsidies: Farm (including sugar and tobacco), Auto, Airline; ALL of them

To peteah's offering instead of just saying reform, how 'bout settlement caps?

To Blanton, how 'bout Govt ID's to prove citizenship, and use these to drive and vote and everything else?

Complete closure of the border-fence from shore to shore and entry points guarded and controlled by Border & Homeland

In memory of DPW, waterfront entry locked down as well SOME blockage of entry from waterfront, and all containers inspected

From casualobservations' thread just to keep it all in one place here are a few more:

All-volunteer campaign workers

Public Funding of campaigns under the auspices of helping the little guy be able to run for office

Limited or capped pay & pensions for House & Senate

Spending limit on campaigns

Abolish the IRS

Reduce Government by 80 percent

End Welfare, Entitlements and Special Privileges

Abolish the Minimum Wage

Legalize Drugs

Take Government Out of Education

Drop the Davis-Bacon Act

Eliminate Corporate Taxes

Charity from People Not Government

End Protectionism

With Congress taking the attitude that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That's a pipe dream, though.

A minority of bad physicians make up a disproportionate share of the malpractice cases.  Tie malpractice reform to make it easier to fire or discipline bad physicians while proposing tort reform.  This is not only good policy on its own merits but it takes away the excuse that tort reform is all about protecting negligent Defendants and screwing over innocent victims.

For better or worse, it's the closest thing we have to a "user fee" because the proceeds go to infrastructure construction and maintenance.  For the most part, those who pay it are those who are driving on those roads and bridges and it's the fairest way to pay for it.

If anything we ought to consider raising the gas tax to pay for the cost of our Middle East foreign policy since it is in large part about ensuring access to our fuel supply rather than subsidizing lower energy costs with higher income taxes.

Most of the problems facing America are not because of bad policy, it is because our resources are mis-allocated. Such as:

1. Send all IRS agents to Guantanamo and replace them with the terrorist prisoners. This would result in a kinder and gentler IRS and the international community would applaud the release of those wrongly held innocents.
   
2. Bring the troops home from Iraq. Replace them with true peacekeepers and peacemakers from the anti-war crowd. Let the love flow.
   
3. Cut off all funding for Congress. Let them auction their votes on Ebay creating a much more efficient model for vote buying.
   
4. Re-assign all teachers to janitorial duties and all janitors to teaching. At least the kids would learn the value of actually working for a living. Several of the teachers would improve as well.
   
5. Put a big time Wall Street Crook in charge of the Treasury so that ethics will not interfere with printing worthless currency and T-bills. Oh, OK, check that one off as done.
   
6. Take all the members of AA and make them professional drivers. Send all the booze to the Kennedys to make sure the AA folks stay on the wagon through lack of supply.
   
7. Send John Kerry back to Viet Nam. The only place he evidently actually accomplished anything.
   
8. Send Dick Durbin to look for Adolph Eichmann. Dude knows a Nazi when he sees one.
   
9. Plug that Indonesian volcano with Al Gore to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
   
10. Put Planned Parenthood in charge of registering voters for the Democrats.
    
11. Install mirrors at all polling places. Anyone who can't make a fog doesn't get to vote. Anyone who thinks they have found their long lost twin can run for Congress.

Any one who runs on this platform gets my votes.

the story just down the page from here by Pejman Yousefzadeh about Kelo.  The abuses of eminent domain typically outrage the public.  If the GOP were to push for legislation to eliminate those abuses, it would play quite nicely.

1. Control Spending by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment & Line Item Veto
   
2. Re-establish Mandatory Sentencing for Federal Criminals
   
3. More tax breaks and subsidies for families, end marriage tax
   
4. term limits
   
5. Class action and tort reform, lower prices for all products and services by limiting the risks of losing a big court case,   "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws
   

_____

And more ideas that I think would be generally approved of, if taken seriously

A. general tax reform and simplification

B. Prevent federal money from going to support the welfare of illegal immigrants, and make state grants contingent on them doing the same (we should all agree on that)

C. Reform the UN or stop funding that speech club for third world despots

D. End Affirmative Action, it hurts minorities

E. Let States decide how to regulate abortion

F. Lower Gas prices by ending the federal gas tax and ending ethanol requirements

G. Stop all corporate welfare, including farm subsidies

H. Low cost health insurance, by allowing plans to exclude coverage for various ailments, resulting in a greater variety of plans, and allowing small businesses to pool together to purchase insurance and buy across state lines

...seem to be high on the collective radar lately.

...end fed'l funding of bi-lingual education in primary/secondary schools.  The last time this was tried, in Calif. in 1996, it polled pretty well.

...require up-or-down votes on earmarks, ala' Sen. Trainwreck Coburn's parliamentary tactics some weeks ago.

...codify the Executive's power in wartime, subject to Congressional oversight, to "warrantlessly" collect signals intelligence and surveill international communications to the US.

Current, topical, high-profile, although #2's use against WHOM as a wedge is debatable.

--furious

can't find anything wrong with any of it, but still BRUTAL!

I especially loved #3 and #10!

We've normalized relations with that country...sending Kerry back now COULD start another war!

For the same reasons I don't like the federally mandated ID card--neither take into account local realities. Is motor voter even enforced? I know when I went to get my driver's license in Arkansas, I was specifically asked if I wanted to register to vote. (I said yes.) I don't think that ever happened at NJ DMV.

...so he can clear up the whole "Seared!  Seared! Magic Hat at Christmas" confusion.

--furious

are spent. Here in NY gas tax revenue goes into the 'general fund'.

What's wrong with posting the truth? The federal and state gasoline taxes are outrageously high.

or 'wedge' issue, regardless of how you feel about it. Breaking out the cost from the taxes and posting it would.

The feds need to get out of the highway business--devolve it to the states.  You would deal with much of the earmarking problem that way also.

Inevitably, Congress promises/legislates highway projects that the gas tax can't cover leading to subsidies from general revenues (that are often hidden).  

1. Balanced Budget Amendment--Yes, yes, I've heard all the critiscms before (fighting on the Dems terrain, its about spending not taxes, etc.)  Bottom line, the American people understand it, we control Congress (for now), and the No Tax Increase Pledge movement is strong.  Jump the ball.  
   
2. Jurisdiction stripping for the Pledge of the Allegiance.  If Congress wants a way to thump its chest, then why not use its explicit authority to redraw the jurisdictional lines of the federal court system to hear Pledge of the Allegiance cases.  I would start here before moving on to the other issues that the Court has whiffed on.

It might be better to structure your farm program idea initially (I too support outright abolishment of them) as a "payment limitation" on big farms.  You lose the South because of the large cotton and rice farms, but you can sell it almost everywhere else--and the debate puts pressure on every other farm program.  Plus, you bring the greens and the foreign aiders into your coalition.  

a Balanced Budget Amendment is if a "no new or increased" tax provision is written in to the amendment.  Otherwise, I am absolutely opposed.  It will be nothing more than license to raise tax rates.  Just ask John McCain...

Stick the 2/3rd provision in the amendment--I'm all for it.  Nobody is more of a starve-the-beast guy than I am.  

However, even without it, a balanced budget amendment is good policy and even better politics.  There is only one thing this President and this tired GOP Congress has a proven ability for--cutting tax cuts and extending them for as long as they can within the rules of the day.  

The importance lies in setting the goal of a balanced budget without tax hikes.  It forces Congress, the House in particular, to adopt a big goal and then live by it.  I urge you to read Newt's book, Winning the Future, where he recalls the fact that even though they lacked one vote to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment in the Senate, the Leaders decided then and there that they would make decisions as if it had passed. And they did just that a few years later.  

Also, returning the focus to balanced budgets flushes out the Democrats for what they are--tax and spenders.  We want to sell that the only way to balance the budget is to cut spending or raise taxes.  Most of the Dems don't, and we are letting them off the hook while we wait for TABOR support to grow (which is nowhere at the federal level given the added difficulties of Social Security, Medicare, and defense spending).  

I honestly think the Amendment is the only way to capture the attention of the American people on the need to cut spending.  Our base is there, but we need the the rest to reform Medicare and Medicaid, farm subsidies, etc.  We can't do that unless we convince on the problem in a way they can understand.  

at least about the amendment without the clause about no taxes.  Without that it's bad public policy and even worse politics.  It sounds nice, sounds very responsible, sounds like we're holding the Congress accountable, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Congress will automatically raise taxes to cover spending.  What the heck, they're only going to tax the rich.  And the corporations.  You know, those groups that don't pay their fair share.

You rightly note that Dem's are "tax and spenders".  I'm having a really hard time separating them from the Republicans in office now.  They won't push through a spending cut that amounts to less than 1% of the budget and it's only earmarks.  Where do you think they will find the will to really curtail spending?  Not happening.  Not now, not ever.

1.  Term Limits.  People dislike both parties right now, term limits would be very popular.
   
2.  End Earmarks.  Or at least bring them to daylight by requiring an individual vote on each one.  Sen. Coburn is making progress on this but he is fighting Republican leadership to do so.
   
3.  School Choice.  If the effort to close the Dept. of Education is over, then we should at least put forward a popular pro-market solution that polls well in inner-cities and among some subsets of Democrats but is opposed by Democratic special interests.
   
4.  Anti-Kelo.  A federal ban on taking private property for private purposes.  In fact, this could be a Constitutional Amendment that could get 2/3rds in the House and Senate.  Call it the "Property Right Amendment."

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

Not quite as popular or as wedge but could help out:

5.  Hard Cap on Spending.  A TABOR or similar legislation so that the maximum amount that can be spent by the legislature rises at the rate of population growth + inflation.  Thus, government can only spend a maximum of, say, 20% of GDP.  This would probably have to be a Constitutional Amendment and is unlikely to have 2/3rds support.  Also could be replaced with balanced budget amendment.

I'll try and convince you in a later post!  For now, I do think it is wrong to read this Congress as simply tax and spenders.  I think that is an unnuanced view of the record over the last 5-10 years.  For instance, there is absolutely no evidence that either House or Senate Leadership supports tax increases or would to deal with deficits.  Even the moderates have gone along with the tax cuts.  

I agree that there is virtually no difference at this point between the GOP and the Ds on spending.  The majority simply does not view government spending as an encroachment of our freedom, and as a result, are perfectly willing to be slighlty less generous than the minority.  By de-emphasizing deficits, we have let that particular caucus within the GOP get away with a sort of complacency when instead we ought to have made them choose.

Let me put it this way in a slightly different context.  Karl Rove could care less about federal spending.  Karl Rove cares about cutting tax cuts for various policy and political reasons.  How do you make Karl Rove care about spending?  Make the debate about either cutting taxes or cutting spending.  Jump the ball, start the debate, and force the President (with all of us at his side) to defend our vision of government.  Force him to choose his tax cuts over his "big-government" conservatism.  We would win that debate notwithstanding the weak sisters in our party.  

At the very least, a moratorum on earmarks should be adopted.  

Deficits don't hurt the economy like tax hikes do, and balanced-budget mandates replace the latter with the former.

Especially in wartime, we just need to live with the deficit, and find a way to rally people around cutting spending for its own sake.

Thomas Autry was attacked by 5 gun-wielding thugs in Atlanta.  One is dead, one is pretty stabby from Mr. Autry's knife.  Mr. Autry was not charged.  

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060530/ap_on_re_us/marine_robbery;_ylt=Ah99Ily
Y4VsEHzaCbktbFFBG2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

My thing is really simple.  I do not trust elected representatives at any level, of any party, on any issue.  I think that, given any opportunity, they will do the wrong thing.

I understand everything you are saying, and in the abstract I don't necessarily disagree.  The problem, my problem, is that things don't happen in the abstract.  They happen in the here and now.  Take, for instance, the Senate farce on immigration.  Those idiots are running around trying to tell us that they've got our best interest at heart and we just don't understand.  They, either house, will do that any time they've got wiggle room.  The only reason the House seems to be - and I stress seems - standing fast for enforcement over amnesty is because this is an election year and they are getting pounded by their constituents.  The Senate doesn't give a hoot.

I do not want to give ANY politician a choice between tax cuts and big government conservatism.  Tax cuts are gone.  And because the idiots us a static model, revenue will be below forecast while spending will not go down.  Then, because we have a shortfall this year, and because the economy isn't doing all that well, we need to increase spending to help the little people and we need to increase taxes on the fat cats to make up for this year's shortfall and next years spending increase on programs that are important for "the children".  Ad nauseam.

Those with serious dough csn Buy It Now ;)

can't be raised.  Personally I like the idea of the WH and Congress actually having to prioritize their wish list.  As it is now, they just print more money.

I would love to put the farm program on the table next to Social Security.

I firmly believe that if a concerted campaign were to be made educating the public that gas prices are high because the Dems are blocking expansion of drilling and refining, it would be a success.

But then again, it would need to be a good PR operation, something this WH has gotten progressively worse at. Sigh.

Aside from "throwing the bums out," how would you propose injecting new energy and realism into efforts to control spending and limit the size of government?  If unwilling to force the choice between tax hikes or spending cuts, what choice would you present legislators whereby they might vote to decrease spending?

I went to Pendleton to visit him for a weekend.  We were walking around Oceanside (main gate) and I asked Josh if they ever had trouble with the "locals".

He chuckled, "Yeah.  Two guys from the Company were walking down the street last week and two carloads of gang bangers pulled up and jumped 'em."  "What happened?", said I.  "Heh.  There were ten of them.  By the time the cops finally showed up, they had to call extra ambulances.  Eight of them went to the hospital.  One got arrested.  One got away."  "Oh.", said I.  We walked along a little ways and Josh stopped and looked at me, "And we'll find the sob that got away..."

Most Marines you don't mess with.  Some, who can't remember what honor and duty mean, are just a mess.

circumstances.  Until Social Security becomes a net drain on the revenue.  Congress will do nothing hard until they have no choice.  They are addicts.

Take a look at the farm bill.  It's a spending dump, pure and simple.  It harms the economy more than it could possibly help.  Yet all those "conservative" mid-west Members live and die on it.  How about the shelf drilling bill that went down in flames last week.  All those solid conservatives in California and Florida shot it down.

Until the country is ready to get out of denial and start treating these folks like the addicts they are, nothing will change.  And a constitutional amendment won't change a thing.  They'll find a way around it.

1. Social Security reform
   
   
2. A ban on all earmarks
   
   
3. End eminent domain abuse
   
   
4. Association health plans for individuals and small business
   
   
5. A new round of tax cuts
   
   
6. ANWR
   
   
7. A federal TABOR
   
   
8. The Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2007
   
   
9. Tort reform
   
   
10. Stop paying UN dues. Support the establishment of a replacement open to democracies only.

In a debate about the best public policy tools in the box, I don't think it is responsible to say, "Let's just wait till 2009 when the Social Security surplus starts to decline, 2017 when the system pays out more than it takes in, or 2042 when official bankruptcy occurs, and then sit back watch it all blow up."  Talk about a recipe for a major tax increase that we can't stop.  

But to your last point, isn't the best way to awaken the American people to "these addicts" by creating either/or choices?  For instance, the 1996 farm bill was fairly responsible (relative of course) whereas the 2002 bill was an obnoxious giveaway to every sector.  Why the different results?  I think in part because in 1996 there was still a fiscal check on the addiction--the bill had to fit within the balanced budget path.  Take care and good night.  

Would not end if we stopped buying a dimes worth of oil from any of them. We would still be the #1/#2 target that the terrorists want to destroy... in fact it would probably make the situation worse as the economies across the region collapsed and radicalized many currently rational Muslims there. The argument about being in the Middle East is bogus and does not compute after 9/11.

The feds don't build the highways, the states do. The feds have no business collecting gas tax just to redistribute it to the states based on their priorities. This redistribution has been used to sword to force states to adopt laws the feds have no business getting involved in (BAC, speed limit, drinking age, seat belts).

Are already involved in elections. On top of this legislation we have very heavy involvement from Federal courts every step of the way.

What happens in a downturn? Receipts drop as the economy suffers while demand on services increase. So we are supposed to raise taxes during every downturn? Then keep raising taxes as their negative effects on the economy are realized? That's a good recipe for a replay of the 30s.

But...the States refuse to check identification during federal elections...what to do...  Hmmm.. who cares who votes... seems to be the current plan.

We are saddled with many bad laws and bad programs which never go away.

There should be a sunset provision for every law passed by the Feds. We should require that every law be reauthorized by affirmative vote of the House and Senate every 5 years or it expires.

to carry out their operations and if they couldn't get it through some back-door deal with the oil sheikhs they'd be hard pressed to accomplish much of anything--at most they might be able to carry out their operations locally, against their own governments (which ultimately are responsible for the mess the Middle East is in). Even before 9-11 Al Qaida was hard pressed for cash, and our disrupting their financial networks afterward is one of the major reasons they have been unable to pull off any major attacks on the US since.

amendment only if it stipulated that the courts could not impose tax hikes if Congress failed to act--that would be the big danger, and it has already happened on the state level.  Instead there should be a provision that in the event Congress failed to pass a balanced budget the Congressmen would not be allowed to run for reelection in the next election. That should focus their minds wonderfully.

a (declared) war or a recession deficits should be allowed. But those should be the only exceptions.

 like a balanced budget amendment, would also need exceptions for wartime and recession. I don't think we should risk the country's security, and if it came down to a choice between the military and, say, Medicare, which do you think the voters will choose?

Wait, you've all given up on closing that down? That's terrible. Really. How much has education improved since we've had a federal department of ed?  Even if eliminating is a lost cause, sign me up.

where it all goes into the general fund, not some mythical "highway rebuilding lock box"?

is a good list (Adam C's).  My only quibbles is that I would change prominence by listing school choice first and Kelo second.  Term limits are old ideas that are likely unconstitutional anyway.  Add border security and you are good to go!

These could be done several ways as long as Congressional declared "emergencies" aren't one of them.  First, a Congressionally declared war or a NBER declared recession could allow a deficit up to X%.  I'm not sure if the whole "declared war" matters so much anymore.  We already spend 10-15 times more on our military than any other country.  We fought in Afghanistan and Iraq with a doubling or tripling of military spending.  It has increased but I don't think anyone expects it to recede as soon as we leave.  Much of our military spending is going toward infrastructure and intelligence which don't skyrocket and fall with declared war.  In sum, the "war exception" might be fighting the last war.

An alternative idea would be that a super-super majority could allow a deficit for one year at a time.  Say 3/4ths of both Houses or possibly even 90%.  A high enough threshold so that even a small committed minority (like say the RSC) could stop the excess spending.

I could go either way.  I think we should close a department to show that there is still some semblance of small government in the party.  The Dept. of Ed would not be a bad one since the Constitution pretty clearly gives power over education to the states.

But President Bush has gone in the opposite direction.  And his compassionate conservatism is better named Big Government Conservatism.  He seems to think the small government efforts are futile so we might as well use government to achieve conservative ends.  This is how NCLB happened.  So by that logic, we might as well encourage pro-market reforms such as school choice using the liberal means of federal government purse string.

to go back to formal declarations of war anyway, anytime we are going to commit troops to combat outside our borders for longer than, say, 90 days. And I would definitely not want to risk hamstringing the military by short-sighted or foolish fiscal policies. I agree though that a "declaration of emergency" alone would be insufficient for an exception, as these are easily issued and difficult to cancel. A recession of course is `declared" on the basis of hard-data economic facts so we could allow an exception there too since, again, we would not want to hamstring the government's fiscal policies. Remember, the federal government has a whole range of duties, some of them with world-wide implications, which individual states and municipalities ,and the law on intended consequences is something conservatives always need to be wary of when change is proposed.

Re: And his compassionate conservatism is better named Big Government Conservatism.

Or less charitably, "Spend the taxpayers money to buy votes" conservatism, which stinks just as bad as the liberal version of the same

Are we in (declared) war now? The (declared) part of that sounds like a problem to me.

The whole point of terrorism is that it's the cheapest way to wage warfare. You need no budget. How much did 9/11 cost? The tube bombings? The Madrid bombings? The Bali bombings? The sniper attacks in DC? The embassy bombings in Africa? The attack on the USS Cole? Suicide bombings in Israel? The answer is close to nothing. A few guys working at 7-11 could pay for a serious terrorist op.

The whole oil -> terrorism link is made of the same stuff that Michael Moore's movies are.

I know I'm new here. I hope that my comment won't be interpreted as "trolling" but rather as sound advice. If the GOP adopts TABOR anywhere close to the way it is in Colorado then it isn't looking for streamlined government it is looking for no government. TABOR doesn't reflect a belief in fiscal responsibility and taxpayer rights it reflects a desire to topple governments. I understand that this is a conservative blog, but in the following context TABOR is so far right that it is just plain Un-American. Even our founding fathers recognized the need for taxation.
The way TABOR worked in Colorado was that it set both a fiscal cap and a floor. That meant that when revenues were high (because the economy was flourishing) Colorado's budget continued to increase by the maximum allowed every year. When the economy soured and state revenues dropped so did the level of the mandatory cap. For two years the state legislature was forced to flub the budget every way it could think of to provide the most basic services.
Do you think the GOP really wants to abandon its reputation for fiscal responsibility in favor of a failed system?
While I beleive that some provisions of TABOR, like the right to vote in general elections on state tax increases have worked surprisingly well, I think they would be a nightmare at the federal level.
I hope you think this through.

To remove the ratchet effect (and jack up spending in the mean time). Personally, I liked the ratchet effect. The Federal government could certainly use about 50 years of that.

...fiscal responsibility. I think we just need to reinstitute debtors' prison. The entire 109th congress could be its first inmates.

Fiscally responsible about the federal government spending trillions of dollars on things it has no business spending money on. The comment about what the founders envisioned and what is "un-American" is especially amusing. If the founders were alive today, they would be shocked. Then they would go get their muskets.

...for "no taxation without representation" not "no taxation." In the original comment I didn't mention anything about what the founding fathers envisioned, just what they recognized a need for. Are taxes necessary? Absolutely. They provide for the common defense, roads that connect each state, and a functioning government that provides services to its citizens. I have no problem with debating what services are legitimate, but to say that no services--no government--is a legitimate end is "un-American."

Nice straw man you constructed there. I don't remember anyone talking about the complete elimination of the government, or for that matter, the complete elimination of taxes.

As far as your list of two legitimate functions for the federal government to perform, I can agree with half of them. The federal government doesn't build roads. States do. They just use the money to unconstitutionally lord over the states and force them to do their bidding.

when I brought up TABOR. TABOR was bankrupting the state of Colorado as it was intended to do. To allow anything similar to TABOR in Colorado at the Federal level would ultimately either cause the government to go into more debt to provide basic services or eliminate the government. Take your pick. Do you prefer debt or the elimination of government? I set up no straw men.

Even as it was originally formulated with the ratchet effect, does not completely eliminate government.

This is why federalism is so great.  The ratchet effect is now a known issue and can be fixed in legislation.  For example, the cap could grew at the rate of population growth + inflation regardless of actual revenues.  Or the cap could be a percentage of GDP which will dip in recessions but will grow faster in booms.  The ratchet is not a necessary part of a TABOR.

Something about his invention seems similar to the thought processes and rationale put in to solving many legislative issues. I don't know exactly how to describe it, but they just smell a like. Plus, the guy already lives in a Congressional Retirement Village.

You need no budget. How much did 9/11 cost?

 While I would mostly concur with your observation regarding a false causal connection between buying foreign oil and enabling terrorism, it would be good to clarify the definition of "very little money".

 My understanding is that the 9/11 team all had no jobs. They were in the country variable amounts of time but certainly had to be living off a collective funding source that would enable some number of hijacker groupings to pay for shelter and food. Many (all?) of them paid for flight lessons at ~$10,000 a pop. Apparently several of them either lived or visited Florida, which I imagine is not a cheap place to stay. One report says a group of hijackers "lived for several months in the Delray Racquet Club" in Florida. Sounds more expensive than your typical Red Roof Inn. Add in travel costs to get into the country and travel costs to get around the country (which would necessarily include either the purchase of used cars or frequent rentals). Speculate on some other expenses such as martyrdom payoffs to close relatives/parents.

 All tolled, this was not a shoestring operation. And we're not even including overhead expenses associated with the support network - consider covering the costs of individuals involved in the planning and coordination, of whom there would surely be more than one or two. Perhaps you could adjust downward a little in case the hijackers applied for and used credit cards and then never paid the balance - that would seem like an obvious money saving measure for folks expecting a rapid transition to paradise...  

 So what did 9/11 cost in terms of hard currency? Half a million? A million? More?

 It was a big operation compared with solo suicide bombers but the overall world-wide funding mechanism we're talking about has to account for covering "full time" terrorist personnel, not merely self-funded solo actors who are mostly paying their own way.

We don't go to all the pomp and circumstance anymore, but it seems to me that the War Powers Act works just fine.

I don't like it. It's just another dodge by which the Congress relieves itself of responsibility for its actions. I'd rather have the formal declarations of war. That way, guys like Murtha would get what's coming to them. The way it is now, we send the troops out there to get shot at while giving free reign to the Murthas to heckle and bad-mouth them. That stinks.

in comparison to the US defense budget, that is certainly true. But they still needed some cash (and rather a lot of it) to pay for those guys' living expenses, pilot's training etc. And in fact I read somewhere (NRO I think) that Al Qaida was on such a tight budget even before 9-11 that they argued constantly with Atta and his boys over even the most trivial expenses. (Or maybe Osama is just the ultimate tightwad). And don't forget the WTC bombers in '93 who were caught when they tried to get their deposit back on the van they rented and blew up.

All the evidence points to the fact that these groups are very desperately short of cash, and one very good way to hamstring them is to make sure they have as little of it as possible.

but I'd be happier if we did go back to declaring war when we are going to have a war.