If you implement a budget based on a prior year's receipts, the politicians don't have any choice but to deal with it - whether they want to realize it or not. They'll only have that much to work with.

Actually, I would argue the corresponding inverse principle of no taxation without representation: no donation without representation. If you aren't living and voting in a precinct, you can't donate money to that candidate. I see this happening where I am with out-of-state donors giving money to specific candidates even though they have nothing to do with my area. Representation is supposed to be local. I'm sick of people like Bloomberg, Soros, and others trying to sway votes clear across the country from where they live just to further their agenda.

My problem with that is the left's scorched-earth methodology. If Obamacare kills 2/3 our population before the dumb masses figure it out the left will be smiling.

As for me I'm glad they did not repeal obamacare. Let it die its own death as it surely will. Only then can a realistic look at insurance be possible. I am fairly certain that this was the plan of the rock stars in DC. This way they don't have to make a choice, the free market bails them out and they don't have that Scarlotte Letter on their precious campaigns. We need to go back to user pays and that would clean up a lot of the overcharging that goes on.

You may be right about the drug benefit passing during the GWB administration.

Whether higher tax rates translate into higher revenue or not, you can't rely on politicians to have enough sense to realize that. It would just give them a handle to rob the citizens more and more. (Aside from the fact that the government shouldn't have more $ to play with as a result of social spending). As to PACs, people have a right to give their own money to whichever political causes or candidates they choose.

"it is my view that Democrats have been the party that wants to increase spending as much and as quickly as possible, while Republicans do the same, but a bit slower."
I have exactly the opposite view, but it's of little consequence. Democrats did not contain spending when they controlled the gov't in 2009, and Republicans are not doing it now.

The most recent example is President Trump proposing a budget equal to the projected spending levels under President Obama-- no change. The deficit has been going down due to the economic cycle, from $1 trillion (staggering) to $400 billion. President Trump proposes increasing borrowing.

It's all splitting hairs. No one wants to phase in a real significant decrease. Both parties are doing what they need to get elected in a world where a third of GDP is gov't spending. Their constituents turn over a third of their income to the gov't. They have no hope of getting that cut significantly, so they do not lobby for spending cuts. They lobby to get a contract or grant for their business or a new regulation that will be difficult for new entrant competitors to comply with. And so the problem continues. Talking heads make a living by telling people what evil bastards are to blame, and no one fixes the broken system that makes lobbying for gov't monies/intervention an option.

"the prescription drug benefit for Medicare passed during the Clinton Administration."
Wasn't that during W Bush?

"The second problem I have is that the Founding Fathers never, ever, ever wanted a "social safety net". "
This is not an issue with the post you're responding to, which condemned over-spending in general and said "but people will die" can justify any spending or intrusion.

i must take exception to a couple of things in your post.
First, I agree that we have, in general, a two-name monoparty. But having watched politics for over 50 years it is my view that Democrats have been the party that wants to increase spending as much and as quickly as possible, while Republicans do the same, but a bit slower.
A good example of this is the prescription drug benefit for Medicare passed during the Clinton Administration. Dems put the plan forward, but it got major pushback from Repubs and others, and eventually failed. So the GOP put forth their own plan, slightly less costly by about $40 Billion, but it became a benefit nonetheless.
The second problem I have is that the Founding Fathers never, ever, ever wanted a "social safety net". They believed in liberty, freedom, and personal responsibility. They believed in small - very small - government, limited by the few powers listed in the Constitution, with everything else being under the jurisdiction of the several states. This is why many of us believe that if these social programs ever got a fair hearing before a Supreme Court made up of judges who were strict constructionist Constitutionalists, they would be declared unconstitutional. The document says what it says, with no mention of "social safety net".

Any Amendment to the Constitution approved by the Convention of States (COS) will still need to be ratified by 3/4 of all the states just like any other amendment.
So let's say the COS approved an amendment that repealed the 2nd Amendment. 38 states would need to ratify it. So it would only take 13 states to block it.
Thus, a "runaway convention" might try to do a lot of things, but there would be a very high bar they would have to jump over to have anything become law.

"seem to be working"
I think this is post hoc ergo propter hoc. I don't think a few bad guys are causing gov't cost and intrusiveness to increase. I think it's a natural process of democracy, which is why the Founders tried to create a republic.

Suppose for the moment, though, the cause can be traced backed to a few bad people. What do we do about it? The Constitution needs to make structures robust against bad people when they come along.

As Judge Smales says in Caddyshack, "YOU'LL HAVE NOTHING AND LIKE IT!!!"

Saul Alinsky is the author of "Rule for Radicals" and is the frame work for liberals attack on our core values. Cloward-Piven are university professors who believe the way to destroy a country and gain control is to bankrupt it through insane fiscal policy. Both seem to be working..

The time when Obamacare could have been stopped has come and gone. That would have been during Obama's campaign for his 2nd term. If the US voters had been so offended by this intrusion into our freedoms, the only window they had to fix it was by replacing its source and then quickly fixing his mistake. They didn't. After that, the front loaded benefits (goodies) had kicked in making any subsequent attempt to take them back, regardless of the scheme's obvious downstream doom, a task worthy of Sisyphus.
Once the avalanche started it was too late for the pebbles to vote.

imo, we hardly need reminding that there are people who don't follow objectivist principles. We are pummeled with other, often irrational, viewpoints everywhere we are. I also freely admit that my mind is closed to statist socialism as advanced by most politicians in DC.

Yes, we certainly are. Don't let anyone tell you that we are not a Socialist country because we are. As some wag said, "The only difference between Socialism and Communism is a matter of time."

Could be... I can only go by the evidence as presented - CG (for all his faults) in this thread - and I have seen it before - automatically had a -1 behind his post, regardless of the topic, subject, or point. And it is true, I don't usually agree with him, but just because I don't agree with his viewpoint does not mean having said viewpoint present has no value - to me, it has TREMENDOUS value, as it points out and serves as a poignant reminder that there are people who do not follow the Objectivist dogma hook line and sinker...

And for me, what I have seen is that when people (in general) are not presented with opposing viewpoints (even if they are found distasteful) they tend to become closed minded. That, to me, is a dangerous slope to start sliding down.

OF course, this is just my 2¢... based on a small sample of this thread, and the trends I noticed upon it.

The more that's printed the less it's worth. The movement to "go digital" is the next step in worthless. Many "cash only" service folks up here in cattle and horse country.............better prepare for barter!

"I see Cloward - Piven and Alinsky (sp?) as the driving force behind our demise."
I am not knowledgeable about those people, but my sense is that limited gov't is not the default state for humankind. Even without a specific bad guy, people will expand gov't power and there for various reasons. There has to be a Constitution or some other force to prevent decay toward statism.

" I worry for my 15 year old daughter - in what kind of world are we going to leave her?"
This is an amazingly prosperous time in human history by almost any standard. But we ignore the looming problem of the gov't having so much influence in people's lives. I could see it breaking positively or negatively, which makes me concerned for the future too.

"I search for an actual Gulch."
I feel like people need to break away to some distant place analogous to what the Americas were to Europe. At first they'll be distant and poor. But the isolation and freedom makes them come up with new ideas that make them go from a backwater to the main world power in a few hundred years. I don't know where that is, though, because outer space is impractical, and remote regions like Antarctica aren't remote enough.

"it opens the door to not just what we want, but what the populist leftist urban majority want"
Those are three traits: Populist, Leftist, and Urban.

The only trait that matters to an Article V Convention is a fourth trait: support for limited gov't. For it to work, it would take support from Populists/Elitists, Leftist/Centrists/Right Wingers, and Urban/Rural who believe in Constitutionally limited gov't.

We need that group to be a majority. We should not need a majority because the Constitution was specifically set up to provide boundaries for the majority. But it is not working, so here we are 200 years later unfortunately needing the majority to accept limiting gov't.

"turning on the fire hose for those who would hydraulically mine away the mountain of freedom"
I've heard there are ways to prevent that from happening. I'm ready to accept some risk to get reform now, before it becomes an immediate crisis.

"A mandated balanced budget would just give them any excuse to raise taxes or keep them high;"

Higher tax rates don't translate to higher tax revenues however. That's one of the huge fallacies government lawmakers frequently make. Higher tax revenues have always been recognized after tax rates are lowered. See the presidencies of Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. This proposal would encourage lower tax rates and higher resulting tax revenues. It would also spur both real income and business.

Remember, taxation is proportional to a degree to the number of transactions taking place in the market. Just as in business, you can get your revenue based on higher tax rates on fewer transactions (think luxury goods) or you can get the revenue based on tiny tax rates on many transactions (think grocery stores). If business slows down and tax revenues decrease, Congress will have little choice but to cut costs, decreasing the number of government services. And if they want to add a government service, they're going to have to lower tax rates to fund it without choking off what they already get because of diminishing returns (see the Laffer Curve). I'm certainly open to any flaws one might see in this arrangement, but it seems to me to have a lot of upside potential.

"As to PACs--people have a right to donate their own money to the causes they want to."

Yes. Sorry. What I'm talking about here are direct donations to candidates. People can run PAC's, but remember their messaging has to be on issues - not endorsement of specific candidates. What I want to do is limit the funding coming from outside groups who aren't even represented in the population of a given Representative holding sway (via donations) over how a candidate votes. Another note: this proposal would drastically undercut the entire basis for Party fundraising - since they wouldn't be able to give it back to the candidates or demand specific votes, etc. - which is what currently takes place. Both the Democratic and Republican Parties expect their leadership positions (Whip, Majority Leader, Speaker, Chair) to kick back to the Party itself a certain amount of funding just for holding that position. It makes the Party Leaders like Reince Preibus and Howard Dean de facto political leaders even though they aren't elected.

I'll bring a picnic basket with goodies...

A mandated balanced budget would just give them any excuse to raise taxes or keep them high; they would balance the budget on the backs of the taxpayers.

As to PACs--people have a right to donate their own money to the causes they want to.

Government should still be a paid servant, as
Ayn Rand said. That helps keep them in their place.

Total repeal; that is the only way to go. And if the present Congresspeople won't do it, the best way is to put new nominees in, at the Republican primaries for 2018, which is what was done a few years ago in Virginia, in the case of Eric Cantor, who was defeated for the nomination by Dave Brat.

Your assessment is spot on, except the conquered may not necessarily be ruled over by a Muslim Caliphate as it may be something closer to a Stalin or Mao - or several of them competing over a Balkanized North America. I've said before when the system collapses, the attrition rate will be enormous.

looking at venezuela would be a good start. it happens slowly until all of a sudden it crashes fast. In the meantime, its pretty much like Ayn Rand called it- years of economic hardship