The President has resorted to LYING about this cut, too, in speech claiming that teacher's and firefighter's jobs would be lost.

They are not paid by the Feds, but the idiot will believe him.

Interestingly, according to the Congressional Budget Office the "sequester" cuts are closer to 45 billion than 85 billion.

How exactly that becomes a set of nearly apocalyptic spending cuts in a trillion-dollar-plus budget is beyond me.

Perhaps we could cut the number of pirates federal workers get to drive around in.

The sequester cuts are cuts in the rate of growth.

That the Army is promising to cut training shows how they rate their priorities. But that's nothing new, as local governments will tell you that any budget cuts means that they'll have to cut into police, fire and EMS services first.

Wait...do we really need a fully funded parks and recreation department instead of a fully funded police department?

Remember this the next time someone would like you to believe that you don't need firearms to defend yourself.

Forget the parks and recreation, why not ditch some of the administrative jobs that accomplish nothing much? Philadelphia has many more deputy mayors and assistants to the deputies than it needs. Most school districts and universities are top-heavy with administrators, many of whom do nothing but paperwork to comply with idiotic federal mandates. Of course that would mean we would have to elect a Congress that doesn't create any more idiotic federal mandates.

It is almost impossible to make any sort of real cuts. You cannot argue about cuts. Every cut offends someone, and you will have to fight for every single penny you cut. This is impossibly exhausting.

The right approach is to turn the tables. Start from zero, assume that nothing is funded. Make the people in favor of spending justify each and every one of their programs. What they cannot justify does not get funded. What you don't have time to discuss does not get funded.

The President has resorted to LYING about this cut, too...

PLEASE please someone tell me WHY is this person NOT IN JAIL for at least TREASON???

And NO, that's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know WHY that bastard is not in jail!! He has lied to and violated the American public's trust and he STILL continues to do so! WHY are we taking this??

Flynne,

You claim that it isn't a rhetorical question, hence I am forced to take you at your word that you believe the president should be found guilty of treason.

The fundamental problem with your assertion is that lying about budget cuts doesn't fit the crime as defined in article 3 of the constitution. In particular the crime of treason is defined as follows:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

So how exactly would lying about a budget cut constitute in any reasonable way "levying war" against the United States?

I use the word "reasonable" here purposefully as there are many unreasonable ways to stretch reality to try and fit this definition.

For example you might try to suggest that purposefully lying about budget reductions is an "act of war" because it shows some kind of deliberate attempt to sink the financial stability of the federal government.

However this kind of an unreasonable stretch would mean that ANYONE who evades taxes in any way (i.e. not fully reporting income, taking deductions you aren't entitled to, having undocumented workers for whom you don't pay payroll tax, etc...) would be guilty of the same crime of depriving the federal government of financial stability through a lie.

To state it quite directly... the problem you are talking about isn't treason.

$995 B Sequester is actually $110 B spending increase
02/18/13 - Forbes by Paul Gregory  [edited]
=== ===
The sequester (supposed reduction in spending) is $55 B /year from defense and $37 B /year from social discretionary spending.

These supposed cuts are subtracted after increasing the affected appropriations by estimated inflation. The real result is to increase discretionary spending by $110 billion over the next 10 years.
=== ===

So, a supposed cut of $37 B /year from discretionary spending (government overhead and "investment" projects), amounts to a real category increase of $3 B /year. Of course, that $37 B does represent a reduction in the spending dreams of our politicians.

"Base Line Budgeting" means automatically increasing the government's budget by inflation. The peasant doesn't get that benefit, unless he is privileged to work for the government. The wages and bank accounts of the peasants decrease in value by inflation. The rate of inflation is conveniently computed without counting food and gasoline, two major expenses of importance to the peasants.

You might think that it is reasonable to increase government spending by inflation to keep the real flow of resouces even. But, inflation is engineered by effective political control of the Federal Reserve central bank. The government prints money and borrows it from the Fed, then insulates itself from the theft of real value by increasing its own budget automatically. The peasant gets to contribute an extra 5% automatically, in a hidden inflation tax.

As a former employee of the Federal Government, I'd like to chime in...

No, I'm not going to say you are all wrong.

BUT, there are a few things that aren't exactly right...

First, gov. employees do NOT automatically get an inflation-adjustment pay raise. Congress determines if there will be one. There are time-in-grade (think of grade as level of responsibility) increases. These aren't every single year.

The "dire" warnings about what will happen if the cuts kick in aren't entirely a smokescreen. There are things that HAVE to be paid first, by law. For instance, salaries (hence the dropping of people). But, things like R&D will get cut, as will maintenance and purchasing. This sounds silly, but much of what the government purchases come from specialty production. If the government stops purchasing (because who else is going to purchase parts for an aircraft carrier or military-grade kevlar vests?), these companies will likely go under or find another market/product. This isn't DIRECTLY dire, but when the time comes to replace equipment, there has to be somebody there to make it (and I don't want that somebody to be Government).

So, it's not entirely baseless, but they could definitely do better. MUCH better.

Okay Orion, but I said AT LEAST treason. I wasn't refering strictly to the budget issue. He's done much worse during his tenure. Like, giving high tech weaponry to those who would attack a nation that we are supposedly an ally of. As in, giving planes and bombers to the Muslim Brotherhood isn't treason?

And don't give me "oh he hasn't done that!" Because he has. He is also using drones to spy on American citizens. Is that not ALSO treason? Or is he just staying "within the letter of the law"? In which case, why hasn't someone tried to take him out yet? I can barely even believe I'm asking this. The man is trying to instill a form of socialism in this country and the vast majority aren't even aware of it. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "Rejecting Socialism ISN'T racism, it's PATRIOTIC"

Flynne,

The problem with you invoking the crime of treason here is that the founding fathers were incredibly sensitive to how that particular crime can be abused.

Keep in mind that they came from a society where even the killing of people with different social status resulted in entirely different sentences. If a commoner was killed it was murder or homicide... if a noble was killed it was treason and the individual was branded a traitor.

As a result they made the criteria to have committed treason very restrictive. This wasn't an oversight on their part, it was quite deliberate.

As a result when you clarify your previous statement as "AT LEAST treason" I'm not sure you understand that treason is actually the highest crime someone in government can commit.

It isn't a lesser crime... it is the most significant one.

Again, spying on American citizens isn't an act of war. It may constitute a host of other offenses, but it doesn't fit the very restrictive definition of treason that it explicated in the constitution.

You've chosen the wrong offense here.

As for this statement:

"And don't give me "oh he hasn't done that!" Because he has."

You'd have to provide me with some evidence to convince me that your statement is accurate. Furthermore, you'd have to demonstrate that this was a unilateral executive decision.

"The man is trying to instill a form of socialism in this country and the vast majority aren't even aware of it."

Again, this presumes facts that you haven't made a case for.

I'm not going to simply accept claims of this significance without evidence.

If anything one of the worst examples of socialism being promoted by government was the bank bailout. In that scenario the financial losses of presumably capitalist institutions were socialized.

If capitalism is under attack it is primarily so by businesses who want to privatize profits and socialize losses.

Should the CEO's of those companies by charged with treason as well?... and what about the bank execs that were recently exposed to have been laundering drug money?

If you are seriously concerned about the health of a capitalist society then these are not trivial concerns. Those systemic problems weren't caused by the current administration and are the result of a concerted lobbying efforts that go back decades.

@Shannon: Thanks for your comments from the inside. You are right, of course, however...one of the biggest expenses are personnel.

I, too, worked for the government for some time, and the number of cubical warriors is incredible. If half of us had disappeared from one day to the next, after a brief burp, no one would have noticed. Heck, if anything, the private companies we interacted with would have been able to work a lot more efficiently.

So, how about this: fire half of all federal employees, emphasizing the higher grades: managers and bureaucrats who have no direct interaction with the public. That would save a pile of money, and probably improve the quality of federal services.

You've chosen the wrong offense here. -- Orion at February 20, 2013 3:59 PM

How about high crimes and misdemeanors, to wit:

• Trafficking firearms to Mexico.
• Negligence, malfeasance, or outright collusion with the murder of of an Ambassador and American employees in Ben Ghazi.
• Trafficking firearms to Syria.
• The obstruction and obfuscation into the documents from the General Motors bailouts.
• The continuation of the war in Afghanistan that he vowed to end.
• The continued illegal detention of prisoners in Guantanamo despite his pledge to close it down.

But of course none of this is illegal; right?

Jim P.,

If you or anyone else want to make a case for a specific crime you are more than welcome to do so and I'll form my opinion on the merits of that argument.

My only objection thus far was to the charge of treason which simply doesn't hold up even under mild under scrutiny.

But hey, while we're accusing one politician of committing crimes because of deception we might as well lock the whole lot of them up because I'm pretty sure they are all a bunch of liars.

If we want more politicians to be honest then honesty should be the primary consideration when selecting someone to vote for.

Instead people tend to vote on specific issues... which means that successful politicians are generally going to tell you what they think you want to hear as opposed to the truth.

When our culture makes a habit of rewarding the best liars it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to act shocked and appalled after the fact.

Keep in mind that this sort of behavior is pervasive, from politics, to business, to sports... the people who cheat and lie the most successfully are the ones we tend to reward... until a lie is exposed and then we all act astonished, as if these things are all isolated incidents as opposed to a systemic problem.

Also... how are the following crimes:

"The continuation of the war in Afghanistan that he vowed to end."

and

"The continued illegal detention of prisoners in Guantanamo despite his pledge to close it down."

Are we now going to arrest all politicians who have failed to uphold campaign promises?

Like I said, we might as well start rounding up all the political officials now.

But just to be clear... failing to uphold a campaign promise is not now, nor has it ever been a crime.

Nor should it be by the way, because often times proper decision making requires adjusting course based upon new information.

Imagine for example that a presidential candidate makes the promise not to embroil us in military conflict... and then during the course of their presidency our nation is attacked... should that person be held to that promise under threat of being imprisoned?

Life isn't quite as simple as that.

Orion:

"However this kind of an unreasonable stretch would mean that ANYONE who evades taxes in any way (i.e. not fully reporting income, taking deductions you aren't entitled to, having undocumented workers for whom you don't pay payroll tax, etc...) would be guilty of the same crime of depriving the federal government of financial stability through a lie."

This is flatly wrong, because you have not shown that any other party has taken an oath of office, or even holds a post responsible for national budgetary planning.

In short, you attempting to blame the gasoline for not steering the car correctly.

I rather like this analogy, as there is little argument to be found that Federal spending is not wasteful.

Radwaste,

The crime of treason doesn't only apply to people who have taken an oath of office.

Are trying to suggest that if a government official and a general citizen commit the same exact act that one could be found guilty of treason while the other could not?

To put it quite simply... you are wrong.

That government spending might be wasteful doesn't make it an act of treason, even if it is purposefully wasteful.

The reason it isn't treason is because being a spendthrift or bad with money doesn't mean someone is "levying war" against the united states. One would require evidence that the purpose of the spending was to bring down the government. To which I say... good luck proving something like that.

Furthermore, how could one prove that about the president when budgets require congressional approval. The whole government would have to be in on such a conspiracy.

That government officials might be irresponsible with budgetary issues isn't the same thing as treason.

My point was that calling said irresponsibility treason is just as silly as citing a tax evader for treason.

That you found the latter example to be silly means we are in agreement.

I was arguing for the absurdity of the former via comparison to an equally absurd situation.

But hey, while we're accusing one politician of committing crimes because of deception we might as well lock the whole lot of them up because I'm pretty sure they are all a bunch of liars.

EXACTLY.

Well, all this is nibbling at the edges. Do the math. 70% of the federal budget goes to entitlement payments, which are completely unaffected by sequestration. All this just brings us closer to the day when entitlements, interest on the debt, and government payroll will take up 100% of the budget and there won't be anything left for anything else.

Cousin Dave,

Where do you get that 70% "entitlement" figure from?

The data I have seen shows the following breakdown:

~23% for medicare/medicaid
~22% for social security
~19% for defense
~17% for discretionary funding
~13% for mandatory expenditures like salaries
~6% for interest on the national debt

So even if we count all of social security, medicare/medicaid, and all of the discretionary funding as an "entitlement" we only end up with ~60%.

Even that is a stretch though because it is silly to believe that 100% of all discretionary funding is distributed in the form of "entitlements".

Some would argue that social security isn't exactly an entitlement either as people pay in to the system to be eligible for social security.

As such in some sense social security is an entitlement in the same way that whole life insurance is an entitlement... you pay a certain amount and expect a certain return upon meeting a set of conditions.

So I repeat my curiosity... where does that 70% figure come from?

Let's get back to basics here people. A trillion dollar deficit, and yet an $85 billion cut is going over the fiscal cliff?

Who gives a fuck whether it's 60% , 70% or 20%. When you're tinkering around the edges it doesn't matter.

Some would argue that social security isn't exactly an entitlement either as people pay in to the system to be eligible for social security.

You believed that lie did you Orion? Shame you weren't around a few days ago when I pointed out exactly how wrong that is (go look it up). I'll explain in short sentences. You paid the government. They owe you. It's an entitlement. End of. Shame you'll never see it.

Some would argue that social security isn't exactly an entitlement

I can't help but comment further on this. It is. You paid money to the government, now you want it back. Not gonna happen. Doesn't matter what you call it.

Regarding Flynne's socialism charge.
Obama's 'paycheck fairness' act would make wages across the country the pervue of the government. Sounds like socialism to me

Orion, I saw that 70% figure yesterday, but I failed to note where; I'll have to go dig it up. As for this:

"Even that is a stretch though because it is silly to believe that 100% of all discretionary funding is distributed in the form of 'entitlements'."

A distinction, but an important one: Entitlements are not in the category of "discretionary" funding. They are considered "mandatory" expenditures, and as such, are not explicitly voted on by Congress -- they renew more or less automatically, with an increase determined by a formula, every year. Entitlements, and the interest payments on the federal debt, are the only spending that is categorized as "mandatory" by the federal government. Everything else, including Constitutionally mandated functions like defense, is in the "discretionary" category.

Some of the entitlement costs get counted in with the "discretionary" piece by commonly propagated accounts, even though they are mandatory. For example, the federal food stamp program, which is administered by the Department of Agriculture. That tends to hide a lot of entitlement costs. Further, the federal government does like to break out federal salaries as a separate line item, but some of those salaries (don't know what percentage; will have to try to find something) go to employees who work in the agencies that administer the entitlement program. Thus, their salaries should also be included in the total cost of those programs.

Figured that way, the 70% number sounds about right to me. In fact, it may be a tad low.

Ltw Says:

"I can't help but comment further on this. It is. You paid money to the government, now you want it back. Not gonna happen. Doesn't matter what you call it."

I agree that social security isn't exactly solvent when it comes to it's expected financial obligations.

However, if it doesn't matter what it is called, then why call it an "entitlement".

Maybe there is just a semantic issue here. You see, when I hear people talk about "entitlements" I usually suspect that they mean that someone expects something that they haven't necessarily earned.

For example, I've never heard anyone refer to a salary as an "entitlement". If someone has worked the hours and has an agreement with their employer or customer, that salary has been properly earned. As a result people tend not to use the word "entitlement" as it has come to be viewed as a pejorative in some circles.

If you and others here mean "entitlement" in the sense that the people receiving something have earned it through some action then I don't necessarily have an objection.

Cousin Dave,

Alright, perhaps I misunderstand the defintion of entitlement you are using.

For example, would you classify the salary received by military personal as an entitlement?

Or the cost of food they are supplied with then they are overseas... does that get classified as an entitlement too?

If so then I am alright with the 70% figure because it simply incorporates more items from other sections of the budget than I haven't usually heard being classified as an "entitlement".

Well have you heard about the latest from Ray "the Hood" LaHood on the fiasco the sequestration will have on air travel:

The White House rolled out Republican Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Friday to warn that sequestration would bring “calamity” to air travel by forcing the FAA to close dozens of control towers and eliminate overnight shifts at others, in turn prompting airlines to cancel or delay flights. Delays would be as much as 90 minutes, he said.

If you look at the numbers on page 30 here the FAA employs 47K employees. Are you telling me you can't cut redundant employees in the staff?

So you're telling me that out of about 47K employees you can't find a few hundred redundant employees that aren't controllers?

Jim P.,

I have no idea what level of redundancy exists within the FAA employment roster.

Since you are the one making the claim that cutting employees for the FAA is a good strategy it is incumbent upon you to support that claim.

How many employees can be eliminated according to your analysis?

As with all things the devil is in the details.

Let's say that you're right though and a "few hundred" employees can be cut... that would amount to less than 1% reduction in employment.

When a family is in financial crisis it doesn't make much sense to focus efforts on searching through the couch cushions for loose change. More drastic adjustments are required to fix the current predicament.

One such change would be to dramatically increase the age at which social security can be awarded such that it tracks life expectancy as compared to when it was first instituted.

This is an often overlooked problem.

When the social security act was put into place in 1935 the average life expectancy in the US was ~62. In 2010 the average life expectancy in the US was ~79.

The age at which people are eligible for social security hasn't gone up by 17 years since 1935.

This implies that the social security system is far more stressed than it was ever intended to be. People have much longer retirements now than they had in 1935... that is a recipe for financial disaster.

If we hope to fix our financial situation we need to seriously consider increasing the age of eligibility for social security from 65 to 70 or even 75. Furthermore, if someone has managed to accumulate substantial assets they shouldn't be eligible for social security at all.

That is how you make a real dent in our financial issues. Eliminating ~500 employees from the FAA is small time money.

That is how you make a real dent in our financial issues. Eliminating ~500 employees from the FAA is small time money. -- Orion at February 22, 2013 11:15 PM

Orion,

Did you read the link or watch the video? It is Ray LaHood suggesting the cuts. But if you listen carefully, he is saying all the cuts have to be made to the controllers and airports manning. The stuff that is facing the public. None of it is cuts to background staff. It is all the stuff to get the public riled up.

If you watch the Obama press conference he is saying the cuts are going to be to police, fire and teachers. Those three jobs are paid for by your local community. They aren't, or shouldn't be, funded by the federal government.

And I do agree the changes to SS are needed. But there is a whole structure that has to be rebuilt. You can't just wave a magic wand. For example, you can't take SS without taking Medicare. The maximum age you can be without applying is 69 1/2. No insurer can legally be your primary health care insurer over 70.

But I'll take the sequester. Because a lot of the stuff the federal government is doing is nowhere in the constitution.

Jim P.,

I guess the main point I am trying to get across is that the kind of money being talked about with reference to the FAA is on the order of millions to hundreds of millions.

The kind of money I am talking about are adjustments on the order of hundreds of billions.

That is a factor of 1000 to 10000 greater in magnitude..

Those are the kinds of changes that need to be considered when talking about debt that is in the trillions.

Just to put that into perspective, it would be like a family being in debt to the tune of 100K and focusing their attention on how to reduce their yearly bubble gum expenses.

While 100 million dollars seems like a lot of money to the average person, when it comes to the federal budget that kind of money is a drop in the bucket.

When politicians draw focus toward those items they are distracting us from the areas that really need to be dealt with.

Jim P.,

I forgot this part:

"For example, you can't take SS without taking Medicare."

Why should this be the case?

The two systems were established 30 years apart from one another.

Why exactly must they be adjusted hand in hand?

"For example, you can't take SS without taking Medicare." -- Orion at February 23, 2013 5:30 AM

Orion,

It is a requirement, by law to accept Med A at least. I don't know why.

Those are the kinds of changes that need to be considered when talking about debt that is in the trillions. -- Orion at February 23, 2013 5:18 AM

I'd like to see a hack and slash to the federal government on the order you are talking about. But doing it in the hack and slash method will cause many problems.

Yes, let's up the retirement age up 75 tomorrow. So everyone who scrimped and saved to retire at 62 1/2 and set up to have their annuities to start paying out will now have to continue working. Meanwhile, by contract, they are now getting the annuities which are now a huge added tax burden.

What about the person who is 66 and retired with a reverse mortgage. Do they have to go back to work?

What about the insurance companies that don't have normal actuarial tables for health insurance plus 65?

What about the 70 year old that can't their driver's license renewed because they are over 70?

Yes the sequester is a joke of cuts. Call your congress critters and tell them that. But the problem is that if they have an R or a D behind their name -- it isn't much of a difference. They are pretty much both extra-constitutional.

Jim P.,

I understand that SS and medicare are associated with one another, but what I do not understand is your assertion that it is somehow impossible to adjust one without adjusting the other.

It seems to me that it is entirely possible to modify SS without modifying medicare and vice versa if such an action were deemed useful.

"Yes, let's up the retirement age up 75 tomorrow. So everyone who scrimped and saved to retire at 62 1/2 and set up to have their annuities to start paying out will now have to continue working."

The alternative to allowing the current generation of people close to retirement to proceed as if everything is perfectly fine is to cripple the next generation such that they may not be able to retire at all.

This position can only be defended by the most self centered members of society.

The point isn't that SS should suddenly be moved out by 10 years for people who are ready to retire tomorrow.

Instead, people can continue to retire when they like, but they will only be eligible for SS at an age determined by the life expectancy when they were born.

That is the only fair way to handle things.

Anyone who complains how it isn't fair because they expected to be able to retire at 62 is completely ignoring the fact that for them to retire at 62 will be funded by people with fewer assets than they have who at the current rate will not get SS benefits at all.

It doesn't garner much sympathy from me for anyone to complain about the "fairness" of being able to retire at 62 when it comes at the expense of 20 year olds who will be forced to work until they die or have managed to fund their retirement on their own.

The more "fair" way to do it would be to push out retirement for one generation such that the next has the possibility to retire also.

The more and more I learn the more convinced I am that the baby boomer generation is the most self centered and entitled group of people to ever walk the earth.

This of course doesn't apply to each and every individual from that generation. But if they can complain about the "fairness" of having to receive SS at 68 so that their children can hold to receive SS at all then their definition of "fair" seems rather distorted.

I understand that SS and medicare are associated with one another, but what I do not understand is your assertion that it is somehow impossible to adjust one without adjusting the other

I'm not saying it can't be separated. The amount of work to do it is going to be beyond daunting.

You (and hopefully I) will be fighting AARP, traditional Democrats and Republicans, the bureaucracy that is SSA and Medicare, the insurance companies, and numerous other entities.

Then currently we have a Democratic president that is so out of touch with reality that he thinks we can spend the same amount and just raise taxes.

I'm all for shutting down SS for anyone who is under 55. But if you want me to continue pay the "full" SS tax as I now have to figure out how to fund my retirement at an age I desire, you can kiss my butt. I don't expect you to pay the full ride either.

The government has become about building a dependency culture. Anytime you hear a politician use the quote "funding a" project, study, program ask them "What is the source of the funds?" Because it is coming out of our pockets.

There are any number of "entitlements" I'd like to see shutdown. The FAA should be a civilian organization, paid for by the airlines. The Department of Energy shouldn't exist, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission being transferred to the military.

Unemployment? Where is your savings account?

There are some that become disabled through no fault of their own, or are born disabled, but that is probably in the 3-5% range of the population. They deserve societal support. But the "my back hurts, I can't work." claims. It's called office work.

Jim P. Says:

"You (and hopefully I) will be fighting AARP, traditional Democrats and Republicans, the bureaucracy that is SSA and Medicare, the insurance companies, and numerous other entities."

This may all be true, but as I said before, when one is in debt up to their eyeballs, the solution isn't to search for change in the couch cushions.

People need to understand that the SS system as it was originally designed wasn't intended to support an aging population from age 65 to 80.

When it was originally implemented it was set to kick in around the age of the average life expectancy.

If people had been smart about it, they would have recognized that improvements in health care would result in enhanced longevity with the result that SS would be more stressed than originally intended.

The reduction in birth rates is also a problem as taking that into account makes SS sort of a pyramid scheme at this point. The way to try and fix it is to engage individuals 40 and younger and get them to take this issue seriously.

“I'm all for shutting down SS for anyone who is under 55.”

It doesn’t need to be shut down completely to start to resolve things. It simply shouldn’t kick in at 65 for people under 55. The system should be designed such that everyone who pays in has the hope of receiving a return at some point (unless they can handle retirement on their own in which case SS should simply be seen as a retirement insurance program… keep in mind I’d expect to land in this situation and receive nothing, I’m okay with that so long as I can expect to receive something if I am physically debilitated and unable to achieve sufficient retirement funds on my own).

“Anytime you hear a politician use the quote "funding a" project, study, program ask them "What is the source of the funds?" Because it is coming out of our pockets.”

Of course it comes out of our pockets. The source is always from the public, which is why those funds need to be used for the public good.

The issue is that there needs to be a way to reconcile that your view of what is in the public good, and someone else’s view of what is in the public good isn’t always going to be the same. That is why we live in a democracy. That you feel your interests aren’t being met suggests that many people disagree with your perspective. What you need to do under those circumstances is to make better arguments and convince more people to see things the way you do, that is part of the democratic process.

“There are any number of "entitlements" I'd like to see shutdown.”

Again with the term “entitlements”, to a certain extent this word is being used in a way that constitutes a fallacy of equivocation. Remember not long ago Cousin Dave was talking about “entitlements” in terms of government obligations which people might have very well earned… in other words, they are legitimately entitled to those funds. Now the term “entitlement” is being used as a pejorative again.

If it was legitimate, why shut it down?... unless of course you mean entitlement in a derogatory way.

“The FAA should be a civilian organization, paid for by the airlines.”

This is not acceptable. The FAA is responsible for controlling the air traffic control and navigation system which dictates travel constraints for both civil and military aircraft.

The airlines have no business controlling the airspace regulations for the US military. Furthermore, the FAA is responsible for issuing, suspending, and revoking pilot licenses. Does it make sense to you that We should obtain drivers licenses through the government, but obtain pilot licenses through corporate entities?

And before you start talking about the constitution, please remember that the constitution clearly empowers congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. That includes transportation of trade items between those states which would put interstate flights clearly in their purview.

Please refresh your memory about Article 1. Congress has vast legislative powers outlined in Article 1.

And before you start talking about the constitution, please remember that the constitution clearly empowers congress to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. That includes transportation of trade items between those states which would put interstate flights clearly in their purview. -- Orion at February 24, 2013 10:30 PM

You obviously have no clue of the original intent of the commerce clause. The intent was to foster fair trade and knock down tariffs from state to state. So if I was a cotton producer in Georgia shipping my crop to the looms in New York, Virginia couldn't tax it for being in a wagon in VA during the trip or because the boat ported in Maryland to drop off peaches. That Wickard v. Filburn perverted the issue even further it still worse.

The federal government is supposed to be a small and limited thing looking outward to the world, not strangling the individual state's choice to make their ow laws.