My first proposed amendment would be to make all government employees and politicians at all levels subject to all the laws they pass. no special health programs, pensions or perks. No qualified immunity. no civil forfeiture, You're all in it with us or you're not in at all.
Good work thinking about the unthinkable. My takeaways; live in someplace like Texas, and bank in someplace like Switzerland. A side issue is that a U.S. financial collapse would impact the rest of the world even more than us. The death of globalism means the end of the Pax Americana and protected commerce. Many countries, from Egypt to China, will collapse into famine. It’s gonna be lit.
What was it Warren Buffett said -- "I can solve the budget deficit crisis in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there’s a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.” Boom. Problem solved.
Of course that will never happen. Literally (the most overused word in the English language, but its "literally" the only word that applies) NO ONE in politics is talking about debt. Druckenmiller says we should expect more "fiscal recklessness." The debt problem will get much worse before the bond market gets the stones to push back. This is Fourth Turning stuff unfolding in real time. I listened to a podcast the other night where the person suggested that before the Crisis hits, we will have a period of euphoria where everyone believes the party will continue -- late 1920s stuff. Too many people now are expecting doom around every corner. What could cause the euphoria? Who knows. Maybe a Trump presidency sitting down Russia and Ukraine and hammering out a peace deal, restoring US to unipolar status, hooking Russian energy back to Europe. Who knows. The point is that the crisis, when it hits, will come from a direction that no one expects. The leaders who will pick up the pieces may not even be in their 20's yet. But the leadership will not come from the traditional right or left.
So many interesting scenarios. What a time to be alive.
I'm slow. So it took a long time for it to dawn on me that Republicans have to beg for and spend millions and millions of dollars to win and then hold a Congressional seat, and have to fight tooth and nail -- either against a Democrat or against other Republicans -- to win and then hold a Congressional seat, and that no Republican is going to go though that meat grinder and spend those vast sums of money only to arrive in Washington and set about diminishing the reach and power of what he just fought a cage match to obtain partial control of. We would need a GOP majority (and President), each member of whom had the spirit of a Medal of Honor winner, to sacrifice their political careers on the altar of deficit reduction (with no guarantee that their replacements wouldn't just dishonor their sacrifice). It is just not going to happen. GOP constituencies -- and not just the campaign donor class -- expect ever more federal money just as Democrat constituencies do.
Very sensible thoughts, Professor. But on an individual level and in a bankrupt and/or hyperinflation scenario (with or without CBDC), hard assets (tools, supplies, precious metals) and barterable skills will probably be the best way to go. Oh, and guns/ammo. I do like the Professor's take on state-level governance in place of rule by a hollowed-out federal entity. Unless you live in California, NY, NJ, or Illinois--exodus from there seems inevitable.
My greatest fear as a recent retiree is that the feds will swoop in and confiscate a significant percentage of personal savings from those of us who were “fortunate enough to have retirement savings.” Not pensions - personal savings accumulated after having paid my fair share of taxes. The idea of a “one time, 15%” cash grab of 401ks has been floated before - is it too far fetched to think this is an idea that could become reality to “save” social security or fund some other “compassionate” policy? I shudder to think of it.
Far more likely, I suspect, is “means-testing” Social Security (and Medicare) so that people who have scrimped and saved to build a nest egg are no longer eligible.
As far as changing the constitution, here are my top 3 ideas: yes to more Representatives (at least double to 870, or even 1000); 3 Senators per state (but cannot be from same party - must represent 2 largest parties in state); and candidate for President must have been elected to and served one term as governor of a state - that way we know how someone will govern. But my most passionate idea is: election districts drawn by computer (using an open source program), so no more gerrymandering.
You requirement to have served as a governor would ensure that only professional politicians qualify. No Trumps. I know there are plenty who would see that as a feature, to me it's a bug. Perhaps a requirement that no one holding current federal office can run would suffice.
I stand by my idea. Businesspeople only have to satisfy stockholders; politicians have to satisfy voters. Senators and Reps would make poor presidents because they don't have to govern; at least governors would have a record of HOW they governed. Trump, Harris, Obama, Biden, Hillary, Vance, none has ever had to govern a state with all its departments and agencies (well, Trump did as Pres, but not before). The idea doesn't guarantee competence (Carter?), but it gives some record of how they might do. (BTW, I want Trump to win, but I wish he was a better politician in some ways.)
Dwight D. Eisenhower was neither a state governor nor a former national office holder. Ronald Reagan was Governor of California for two terms.
Their eras were different than ours, their paths to solutions for problems of their eras were different, and the country they each left us with was in better shape than what the last four Democrat administrations have effected.
"(BTW, I want Trump to win, but I wish he was a better politician in some ways.)"
Agree 100% with that sentiment.
Hopefully he learned some things in his first term that will carry over into his second IF the upcoming election's process and protocols can be trusted to yield a trustworthy, verifiable result.
Instead of having more representatives, I think we need to reduce what the Congress does so that their actions apply more broadly, so whether it is 750K or 1M, consensus would be possible. We need to pull back from Congress needing to provide specific funding for localized pork projects and instead provide less funding, but for more universally needed things. Can you imagine the size of an appropriations bill with 1000 Congresspersons laying in individual earmarks? Yikes. Leave the purely local stuff to state and local goats - but encourage them to work together on common needs.
True, 1000 congresscritters could spend more than 435. Easily. But if I were making the new Constitution, there would also be rules about any spending bills would have a dollar limit, bills would be a max 5 pages long, each agency/dept would have a separate spending bill, etc. Also, more congresscritters means more viewpoints, possibly more factions, leading to more compromises amenable to more sides. Just my thoughts.
Thanks for another post full of sound ideas and positive focus. I think we also need to consider Milton Friedman’s idea that instead of trying (in vain) to elect the right group of lawmakers to make these changes, we should focus attention on “motivating the wrong people to do the right thing” along the lines of Mr. Buffet’s suggestion to make Representatives and Senators ineligible for future office. Myself, I’d go with positive reinforcement, giving each office holder $1M in untaxed bonuses every year there was no deficit and no increase in taxes greater than 3% from the previous year.
You do not have to be an expert in finance or economics to understand we are approaching runaway federal debt. Collapse of the federal government is next.
Where are our red state governors in developing a strategy to deal with this potential outcome? It will be more devastating than any hurricane.
In a normal budget year, less than 30% of the federal budget is subject to Congressional appropriations. 60% is cherished entitlements (the runaway portion), which are not subject to Congressional approval, and about 10% to interest on the debt. Interest payments on the debt are rising dramatically to the point of exceeding the entire budget for national defense.
The emergency potlatch bills, such as those Congress passed during the pandemic, were for the most part, justified to correct the federal government's own mistakes, such as funding one of our communist enemy's gain of function research and then compensating voters for the shutdown of the economy whether they it needed it or not.
The response: angry letters, hearings and shooting money out of the money cannon in Washington to cover for the failures. Or, if you won't vote for our stupidity, one party will import a voting block, give them drivers licenses and transfer a big portion of the nation's wealth to them to seal their vote. They get to extend control of the House by requiring more Representatives from deep blue, sanctuary jurisdictions. (You RINOs and lefties can dis on this all you want, but this is also Elon's theory and, I promise, he is a lot smarter than you are).
The big question is why is the Republican party incapable of countering this outcome and potential collapse with a decent strategy? Republican Governors are elected to run their states and not to reform the federal government. But they are one of our best last hopes. Leaders among red-state governors need to awaken to the fact that they are not serving their constituents by ceding control of their welfare to the feds. At the very least, they should organize and develop a strategy to deal with the potential collapse described in Glenn's post.
The Republican Governors Association is an organization through which governors could develop that strategy. But lets face it, their members got elected by being Boy Scouts not street fighters, which is whom it will take to save the nation.
It is not logical to expect citizens and conservatives to arm themselves for self-defense, including the the chaos caused by a government collapse, but not support and promote plans to prevent and counter the same collapse. Just watch DeSantis in Florida to see this potential unfolding as we speak.
DeSantis and Abbott seem to have the streetfighters' DNA. Let's hope there are a few other red state streetfighters willing to rally to the challenge.
Could you spoon feed me some of the stats? I can always go out and find them, but it seems like you have them at hand. I'm interested in Fed tax revenue vs. borrowed funds, actual dollars and percentage. I suspect, but don't have the data yet, that every single appropriated "discretionary" dollar spent by the feds - the 30%- is borrowed, because actual tax revenue goes to feed interest on the debt, and the socsec and spendycare entitlements.
back in the early 90s, a few cases of flagrant embezzlement by members of Congress became public. they got little more than a slap on the wrist and it was off to the races. Indeed Harold Ford and Tony Coelho, for example, continued as prominent members of the House and while Dan Rostenkowski was a fall guy, even he got a pardon from slick willy. So the first need is for ruthless and relentless punishment of elected, appointed, and SES personnel who misappropriate either public funds or campaign contributions . . . and their estates and accomplices too.
Everyone who draws a federal salary greater than 2x per capita gdp is audited annually. Every former federal employee who draws a private sector salary greater than 2x per capita gdp is audited annually. Everyone paid by any political campaign is audited annually for at least ten years after the last campaign. Implement something along the lines of the Stark law regarding physician:hospital financial relationships for politicians and their staffs regarding all of their financial transactions.
If we're amending the constitution I'd like to see the tax authority limited to the sole purpose of raising revenue. No social engineering, no vice taxes, no special tax zones, no cut-outs.
Currently politicians raise money by (among other things) selling the ability to influence tax rates. Connected persons and lobbyists advocate to lower their own taxes and increase rates on competitors. More political spending and more graft, which is why an amendment is needed. Incumbents will never vote to reduce their access to cash.
I'm not sure how it would need to be worded but in practice if the government sets a tax rate it will be broadly based and equally applicable to all similar transactions or properties. The result should be that the tax on guns or gas or alcohol is no higher than for food or clothing. Property tax rate is uniform for all properties, industrial, residential, undeveloped. If the rate is so high as to be an intolerable burden for some segment of society then lower it - broadly and for everyone.
To be clear, the proposal is aimed at simplifying government and minimizing corruption. There are undoubtedly many benefits to shaping the tax code to favor the needy and deserving. None of these benefits are worth the political mischief of allowing elected pols to sell favorable tax treatment to VIPs.
I greatly fear a Constitutional convention. We do NOT have a leadership that can be trusted to come up with something even as remotely excellent let alone improve on it.
"plans to temporarily pay unpaid federal workers, or find them alternative employment, and more."
put the civilians Feds into the CCC. A smart Gov will work hard to capture the hearts, minds and weapons at the local bases before some Supply SGTs start selling to MS13
My first proposed amendment would be to make all government employees and politicians at all levels subject to all the laws they pass. no special health programs, pensions or perks. No qualified immunity. no civil forfeiture, You're all in it with us or you're not in at all.
Good work thinking about the unthinkable. My takeaways; live in someplace like Texas, and bank in someplace like Switzerland. A side issue is that a U.S. financial collapse would impact the rest of the world even more than us. The death of globalism means the end of the Pax Americana and protected commerce. Many countries, from Egypt to China, will collapse into famine. It’s gonna be lit.
What was it Warren Buffett said -- "I can solve the budget deficit crisis in five minutes. You just pass a law that says that any time there’s a deficit of more than three percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election.” Boom. Problem solved.
Of course that will never happen. Literally (the most overused word in the English language, but its "literally" the only word that applies) NO ONE in politics is talking about debt. Druckenmiller says we should expect more "fiscal recklessness." The debt problem will get much worse before the bond market gets the stones to push back. This is Fourth Turning stuff unfolding in real time. I listened to a podcast the other night where the person suggested that before the Crisis hits, we will have a period of euphoria where everyone believes the party will continue -- late 1920s stuff. Too many people now are expecting doom around every corner. What could cause the euphoria? Who knows. Maybe a Trump presidency sitting down Russia and Ukraine and hammering out a peace deal, restoring US to unipolar status, hooking Russian energy back to Europe. Who knows. The point is that the crisis, when it hits, will come from a direction that no one expects. The leaders who will pick up the pieces may not even be in their 20's yet. But the leadership will not come from the traditional right or left.
So many interesting scenarios. What a time to be alive.
I'm slow. So it took a long time for it to dawn on me that Republicans have to beg for and spend millions and millions of dollars to win and then hold a Congressional seat, and have to fight tooth and nail -- either against a Democrat or against other Republicans -- to win and then hold a Congressional seat, and that no Republican is going to go though that meat grinder and spend those vast sums of money only to arrive in Washington and set about diminishing the reach and power of what he just fought a cage match to obtain partial control of. We would need a GOP majority (and President), each member of whom had the spirit of a Medal of Honor winner, to sacrifice their political careers on the altar of deficit reduction (with no guarantee that their replacements wouldn't just dishonor their sacrifice). It is just not going to happen. GOP constituencies -- and not just the campaign donor class -- expect ever more federal money just as Democrat constituencies do.
Good post.
Very sensible thoughts, Professor. But on an individual level and in a bankrupt and/or hyperinflation scenario (with or without CBDC), hard assets (tools, supplies, precious metals) and barterable skills will probably be the best way to go. Oh, and guns/ammo. I do like the Professor's take on state-level governance in place of rule by a hollowed-out federal entity. Unless you live in California, NY, NJ, or Illinois--exodus from there seems inevitable.
My greatest fear as a recent retiree is that the feds will swoop in and confiscate a significant percentage of personal savings from those of us who were “fortunate enough to have retirement savings.” Not pensions - personal savings accumulated after having paid my fair share of taxes. The idea of a “one time, 15%” cash grab of 401ks has been floated before - is it too far fetched to think this is an idea that could become reality to “save” social security or fund some other “compassionate” policy? I shudder to think of it.
Far more likely, I suspect, is “means-testing” Social Security (and Medicare) so that people who have scrimped and saved to build a nest egg are no longer eligible.
Yes
As far as changing the constitution, here are my top 3 ideas: yes to more Representatives (at least double to 870, or even 1000); 3 Senators per state (but cannot be from same party - must represent 2 largest parties in state); and candidate for President must have been elected to and served one term as governor of a state - that way we know how someone will govern. But my most passionate idea is: election districts drawn by computer (using an open source program), so no more gerrymandering.
You requirement to have served as a governor would ensure that only professional politicians qualify. No Trumps. I know there are plenty who would see that as a feature, to me it's a bug. Perhaps a requirement that no one holding current federal office can run would suffice.
I stand by my idea. Businesspeople only have to satisfy stockholders; politicians have to satisfy voters. Senators and Reps would make poor presidents because they don't have to govern; at least governors would have a record of HOW they governed. Trump, Harris, Obama, Biden, Hillary, Vance, none has ever had to govern a state with all its departments and agencies (well, Trump did as Pres, but not before). The idea doesn't guarantee competence (Carter?), but it gives some record of how they might do. (BTW, I want Trump to win, but I wish he was a better politician in some ways.)
Dwight D. Eisenhower was neither a state governor nor a former national office holder. Ronald Reagan was Governor of California for two terms.
Their eras were different than ours, their paths to solutions for problems of their eras were different, and the country they each left us with was in better shape than what the last four Democrat administrations have effected.
"(BTW, I want Trump to win, but I wish he was a better politician in some ways.)"
Agree 100% with that sentiment.
Hopefully he learned some things in his first term that will carry over into his second IF the upcoming election's process and protocols can be trusted to yield a trustworthy, verifiable result.
True but Reagan was a 2 term gov of CA.
Corrected, I'd forgotten that. Thank you!
Instead of having more representatives, I think we need to reduce what the Congress does so that their actions apply more broadly, so whether it is 750K or 1M, consensus would be possible. We need to pull back from Congress needing to provide specific funding for localized pork projects and instead provide less funding, but for more universally needed things. Can you imagine the size of an appropriations bill with 1000 Congresspersons laying in individual earmarks? Yikes. Leave the purely local stuff to state and local goats - but encourage them to work together on common needs.
True, 1000 congresscritters could spend more than 435. Easily. But if I were making the new Constitution, there would also be rules about any spending bills would have a dollar limit, bills would be a max 5 pages long, each agency/dept would have a separate spending bill, etc. Also, more congresscritters means more viewpoints, possibly more factions, leading to more compromises amenable to more sides. Just my thoughts.
Thinking about theses things is always a good thing.
Thanks for another post full of sound ideas and positive focus. I think we also need to consider Milton Friedman’s idea that instead of trying (in vain) to elect the right group of lawmakers to make these changes, we should focus attention on “motivating the wrong people to do the right thing” along the lines of Mr. Buffet’s suggestion to make Representatives and Senators ineligible for future office. Myself, I’d go with positive reinforcement, giving each office holder $1M in untaxed bonuses every year there was no deficit and no increase in taxes greater than 3% from the previous year.
I think a lot more people are going to become subsistence farmers, and it's probably going to be you and me unless you're a midwife.
Thank you for covering this issue.
You do not have to be an expert in finance or economics to understand we are approaching runaway federal debt. Collapse of the federal government is next.
Where are our red state governors in developing a strategy to deal with this potential outcome? It will be more devastating than any hurricane.
In a normal budget year, less than 30% of the federal budget is subject to Congressional appropriations. 60% is cherished entitlements (the runaway portion), which are not subject to Congressional approval, and about 10% to interest on the debt. Interest payments on the debt are rising dramatically to the point of exceeding the entire budget for national defense.
The emergency potlatch bills, such as those Congress passed during the pandemic, were for the most part, justified to correct the federal government's own mistakes, such as funding one of our communist enemy's gain of function research and then compensating voters for the shutdown of the economy whether they it needed it or not.
The response: angry letters, hearings and shooting money out of the money cannon in Washington to cover for the failures. Or, if you won't vote for our stupidity, one party will import a voting block, give them drivers licenses and transfer a big portion of the nation's wealth to them to seal their vote. They get to extend control of the House by requiring more Representatives from deep blue, sanctuary jurisdictions. (You RINOs and lefties can dis on this all you want, but this is also Elon's theory and, I promise, he is a lot smarter than you are).
The big question is why is the Republican party incapable of countering this outcome and potential collapse with a decent strategy? Republican Governors are elected to run their states and not to reform the federal government. But they are one of our best last hopes. Leaders among red-state governors need to awaken to the fact that they are not serving their constituents by ceding control of their welfare to the feds. At the very least, they should organize and develop a strategy to deal with the potential collapse described in Glenn's post.
The Republican Governors Association is an organization through which governors could develop that strategy. But lets face it, their members got elected by being Boy Scouts not street fighters, which is whom it will take to save the nation.
It is not logical to expect citizens and conservatives to arm themselves for self-defense, including the the chaos caused by a government collapse, but not support and promote plans to prevent and counter the same collapse. Just watch DeSantis in Florida to see this potential unfolding as we speak.
DeSantis and Abbott seem to have the streetfighters' DNA. Let's hope there are a few other red state streetfighters willing to rally to the challenge.
Your comments appreciated.
Could you spoon feed me some of the stats? I can always go out and find them, but it seems like you have them at hand. I'm interested in Fed tax revenue vs. borrowed funds, actual dollars and percentage. I suspect, but don't have the data yet, that every single appropriated "discretionary" dollar spent by the feds - the 30%- is borrowed, because actual tax revenue goes to feed interest on the debt, and the socsec and spendycare entitlements.
back in the early 90s, a few cases of flagrant embezzlement by members of Congress became public. they got little more than a slap on the wrist and it was off to the races. Indeed Harold Ford and Tony Coelho, for example, continued as prominent members of the House and while Dan Rostenkowski was a fall guy, even he got a pardon from slick willy. So the first need is for ruthless and relentless punishment of elected, appointed, and SES personnel who misappropriate either public funds or campaign contributions . . . and their estates and accomplices too.
Everyone who draws a federal salary greater than 2x per capita gdp is audited annually. Every former federal employee who draws a private sector salary greater than 2x per capita gdp is audited annually. Everyone paid by any political campaign is audited annually for at least ten years after the last campaign. Implement something along the lines of the Stark law regarding physician:hospital financial relationships for politicians and their staffs regarding all of their financial transactions.
If we're amending the constitution I'd like to see the tax authority limited to the sole purpose of raising revenue. No social engineering, no vice taxes, no special tax zones, no cut-outs.
Currently politicians raise money by (among other things) selling the ability to influence tax rates. Connected persons and lobbyists advocate to lower their own taxes and increase rates on competitors. More political spending and more graft, which is why an amendment is needed. Incumbents will never vote to reduce their access to cash.
I'm not sure how it would need to be worded but in practice if the government sets a tax rate it will be broadly based and equally applicable to all similar transactions or properties. The result should be that the tax on guns or gas or alcohol is no higher than for food or clothing. Property tax rate is uniform for all properties, industrial, residential, undeveloped. If the rate is so high as to be an intolerable burden for some segment of society then lower it - broadly and for everyone.
To be clear, the proposal is aimed at simplifying government and minimizing corruption. There are undoubtedly many benefits to shaping the tax code to favor the needy and deserving. None of these benefits are worth the political mischief of allowing elected pols to sell favorable tax treatment to VIPs.
I am going to create a new country without borders called buttactuallyistan.
President: me.
VP:Riley Reid
Senate: 100 people picked at random who will do whatever Chat GPT tells them
House: All citizens of buttactuallyistan
Postmaster General: Musk
The mandated currency will be processed nacho cheese backed by non-stick aluminum foil.
Might I suggest toilet paper as currency medium? We all need it, we all know how to use it, we know it's supposed to be one-time-only use, right?
I’ll take that as an endorsement. Congratulations on being the first member of my House of Representatives.
That's a completely awful plan buttakshually less bad than all the other ones I've seen.
Does the soiling of it affect its value. And what if some giant government entities just starts making bidets to disrupt this?
I greatly fear a Constitutional convention. We do NOT have a leadership that can be trusted to come up with something even as remotely excellent let alone improve on it.
I think you skipped over the prepper stuff too quickly. That's more achievable for your average Joe or Jane than amending the Constitution.
"plans to temporarily pay unpaid federal workers, or find them alternative employment, and more."
put the civilians Feds into the CCC. A smart Gov will work hard to capture the hearts, minds and weapons at the local bases before some Supply SGTs start selling to MS13