Sender: Rick Raddatz
Subject: Re: A perennial conundrum
Date: Thu, Aug 14, 2014
Msg: 101086

John,

The Gramm-Rudman Act was a cap on discretionary spending and did nothing to ensure that the money that remained after the cap was spent wisely.

Cap and Prioritize, on the other hand, would ideally be a combination of caps covering all spending, with each budget being capped in a way that respected that budgets purpose. And then, on top of the caps, would be the requirement that each budget be prioritized by whomever could do it best. The final prioritized budget would then be published.

The pentagon, for example, would prioritize the defense budget, congress would prioritize discretionary spending, and the states would each prioritize their share of social spending.

Of all these elements, the most important is the idea of he states prioritizing their share of social spending, because that is what ensures the people who need help the most get the help they need.

There is an important balance point where if we keep the purchasing power of social spending the same, taxes can constantly shrink even as the effectiveness of social spending constantly improves.

This, I argue, is the efficient, effective, aggressive pursuit of left-leaning goals within right-leaning limits...and that is why Cap and Prioritize will stick where Gramm-Rudman did not.

Love, Rick Raddatz http://IncentiveReform.org

> On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:03 AM, John Backman wrote: > > I must say, the "50 different experiments" line caught my attention. That's an intriguing idea. > > On another point--and Rick, please pardon me if you've already addressed this and I just missed it--I read your description of cap-and-prioritize and my mind goes instantly to Gramm-Rudman: a much-touted and even intriguing idea that didn't pan out. How do you see the difference between cap-and-prioritize and Gramm-Rudman? > > John Backman > www.dialogueventure.com > www.huffingtonpost.com/john-backman > Board member, NCDD (join us at the National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation October 17-19 in metro DC) > Author, Why Can't We Talk? Christian Wisdom on Dialogue as a Habit of the Heart (published by and available from SkyLight Paths Publishing) > > > > From: List for transpartisan leaders and innovators [mailto:TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG] On Behalf Of Rick Raddatz > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 11:46 AM > To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG > Subject: Re: [TRANSPARTISAN] A perennial conundrum > > Social security, Medicaid, Medicare etc are discussed in section 3 of the paper at http://IncentiveReform.org/Pentanomics.docx > > The proposal is that all federal social spending is brought back "in" budget and block-granted to the states with the requirement that the states publish prioritized budgets. > > This creates 50 different experiments for how best to help people with that money. > > - Rick Raddatz, IncentiveReform.org > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:37 AM, John Eley wrote: > > > Rick > I see no reference in your material concerning social security and Medicare. If you do not cap and prioritize them you leave out an ever increasing part of the budget. Where do entitlements fit in your scheme of things? They are already off line in the budget so do you keep them offline? If so what good does working with other aspects of the budget do? > John Eley > > > On 7/21/14 7:07 PM, Rick Raddatz wrote: > > John, > > Please check out the essay below the video on http://IncentiveReform.org and see if that doesn't answer your concern. > > - Rick > > > On Jul 21, 2014, at 5:00 PM, John Eley wrote: > > The history of congressional attempts to manage the federal debt on a year to year basis is amble evidence that structural changes have little or no impact on congressional behavior in the absence of a willingness to follow the rules that the structure dictates. See the essay by Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post today for a review of that sad history. I suspect that cap and prioritize is another one of those changes that may work for a short time and then be honored in the breach. It is a noble try. I think that this history suggests than even a constitutional amendment would be circumvented by politicians whose jobs depend on giving the people what they want-not what they need. We should change incentives and the rest will follow. > > John Eley > > > On 7/21/14 1:46 PM, Rick Raddatz wrote: > So you want a structure of government where the structure itself forces those in charge to make wise decisions. > > Why isn't cap-and-prioritize the structure you are looking for? > > The cap guarantees fiscal sustainability (just like the cap in cap-and-trade guarantees environmental sustainability) and the transparency of prioritized budgets forces what's left of government spending to allocated wisely (just like the trade in cap-and-trade enables society to wisely allocate what resources are left under the cap). > > - Rick Raddatz http://IncentiveReform.org > > > On Jul 21, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Steven H Johnson wrote: > > When I think of the America I'd like to see, I find myself imagining an America whose major laws and institutions are shaped to respect core virtues and promote the national interest and the common good. > > When I think of the America we have, I see a political system whose officials are rewarded for their self-righteousness. > > Will the self-righteous produce laws that promote the common good? Hmm. Not too likely, it it? This disparity creates a huge clash between the civic culture that modernity requires, and the civic culture that self-righteous partisanship creates. > > If there is to be any lasting cure to this tension, I think it will have to arise from within civil society. Those not locked into the self-righteousness of any particular -ism will be better at promoting a culture of virtue and national interest thinking. > > And some of the key reforms will have to be driven by independents, those not beholden to the -isms of America's major partisan coalitions. > > That's not to say that Americans caught up in the spirit of self-righteousness should not be listened to or engaged in dialogue. But it is to say that dialogues among the self-righteousness won't take us a very long way toward the healing of America. America won't work properly till policies born of self-righteousness have been replaced with policies rooted in virtue and enlightened self-interest. > > What do these thoughts say to this process? Perhaps we should add a framing of the "transpartisan" mission as an exploration of the tension between partisan self-righteousness and the realization of America's full potential. > > Best to all, > > Steve Johnson > > > > Steven Howard Johnson - Civic Futurist > 410-562-0361 > Book in Progress: Thoughtful Patriotism > > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list, click the following link: > http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1 > > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list, click the following link: > http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1 > > > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list, click the following link: > http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1 > > > > To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list, click the following link: > http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG or click the following link: http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1