I'd go further back to St. Ronny with his "I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help." comment.

Means testing will take care of that.

The author fails to mention a couple of really easy methods to shore up the Social Security trust fund: remove the wage limit on the tax, and means testing benefits. Heritage ran some numbers here: https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/saving-the-american-dream-the-heritage-plan-fix-the-debt-cut-spending

It's only 3 weeks into the Trump administration's efforts to curb spending, but they're just nibbling at the edges.

Missed that one. Good or bad people can be in charge of government, and both can make either good or bad decisions regarding change. Whichever way the decisions go, they must be lawful.

I went back and reread Chris' comment and he made no mention of bad or good people. In fact, the 2 things he mentioned were war and cancer research. Let's stay on point.

You guys are ice cold. Let me refresh your memory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001

Does anyone recall what happened the last time the U.S. government ran a budget surplus?

Heh. Maybe just a little pruning is necessary. Thanks for making me laugh at the end of the work day.

Are we entirely sure we're willing to do away with Congress?

It'd be kind of cool to get the general ledger of the United States of America. Can you image how big a file that'd be?

"If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a Theory".

Heh, just once.

I'm afraid my distinction is getting lost here. If the complaints in 2009 were valid, and they probably were, why mimic the complained about behavior in 2025 instead of doing it the right way as an example?

Here's their front: https://www.superevilgeniuscorp.com/

At the risk of a little light BSDI, has a complete list of media payments been made public? There are plenty of subscription services out there.

I've voted 3rd party plenty of times. Truth be told, I live in a solidly blue state, in a solidly blue town, so my individual vote carries no weight in almost any race on the ballot.

I usually come down on the side of the Dems, and now that the GOP has firmly entrenched itself as the party of insurrection it'll remain that way.

In more sensible times I have not been a straight ticket voter.

The actions of this administration are just the proximate cause. We've had plenty of presidents ignore the Constitution over the years. I think the greater danger is we have half of the legislature ready to do the same.

"Thing is, I don’t have to go on to explain why it’s a different position than I held before because it is not a different position than I held before."

Same, brother, same.

I don't know, man. Let's agree for the sake of argument that the Left are unprincipled trammelers of the Constitution. Let's also stipulate that for years the Right has been making principled, but ultimately unsuccessful, stands against those nefarious Lefties.

When the Right gains power, it resorts to the same behavior they previously decried as a matter of principle.

Who am I supposed to be more disgusted by? The side whose principles have proven to be no more than plain old political opposition, or the other one?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1161

$174,000 a year for this.

Throwing up my hands here. Bad faith arguing like this is how we end up with a useful idiot like Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

A rule of men it is.

What I'm seeing is your and Jaybird's appeal to BSDI is evidence that the principled stands taken when legislation was being passed that Republican felt was unconstitutional were just window dressing. If you have genuine principles in 2009, they ought to remain the same in 2025, no?

For the record, as evidence of my bona fides, I voted for BHO in 2008 but not in 2012 for actions he took in office that I felt were out of constitutional bounds.

Not sure if I understand how citing the U.S. Constitution in the United States of America can be evincing cynicism. And the Constitution of not merely a declaration of principles, but the law of the land. If that's cynical, then let's throw in the towel and have a coronation.

As for the rest of your response, I'm all for it.

You're absolutely right. Does that make it any less outside the bounds of the Constitution?

Part of the problem with Congress is we've frozen it in amber as of 1929. The U.S. population that year was 122 million people. Each rep had about 280K people in his district. In 2024 the population was about 341 miliion, rendering each district about 784K people. I'd argue that even in 1929 the people's house was too small, but in 2024 we're looking at districts that are almost as big as San Francisco. How can one person be responsive to that many people?

Coupled with the disastrous Citizens United decision that has allowed anyone with enough money to buy however much government he (mostly) could afford, the people's voice has been lost in America.

Fortunately, the Constitution has provided a remedy for this, namely governmental terms. Don't like your rep? Vote him/her out. Or run yourself! Freelancing the rules of government because it feels good is a path we should don't want to tread.

Heh, but in keeping with the spirit of the times.

This will prove to be the least surprising bit of news for the entirety of DJT’s 2nd term: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-office-of-government-ethics-director/

Part of the reason I've been following this site for so many years is the generally good quality of the discussion. Let's see if we can keep the standards up.