A lot of those make for really good campaign promises but have little substance and are beyond the ability of the POTUS to implement. Examples:
Eliminate the federal tax on gasoline and Diesel. Nice idea, but the devil is in the details. Looking at the gas and diesel that are used in the country each year, that is a loss of about $30B each year. She says that will give the middle class a break on their living expenses. But she goes on to say that the state and local taxes will have to be used to pick up the slack for federal infrastructure costs. Two problems with this: (1) The Feds have overall responsibility for federal infrastructure. Passing it fully onto the state and local governments is not really fair. (2) what the middle class saves in gasoline price will be sucked up by the state and local governments.
The list of: Place a limit on federal spending linked to a percentage of our economy., End taxpayer bailouts for special interests, Eliminate Biden’s $500 billion in green energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act, Implement mandatory zero-based budgeting, Withhold Congress’ pay if it fails to pass a budget, Implement entitlement reform, Push the Fed to maintain a strong dollar. While I support many of these ideas, these are not things the POTUS can implement. Every one of them has to come from Congress. It worries me that she would even suggest this is something she could do as POTUS.
The same goes for the things like implementing term limits on politicians and bureaucrats, and Forcing Congress to vote on new rules and regulations.
The energy independence actions are good, but we have seen already when Trump did those that the left went crazy and fought him tooth and nail. And as soon as a Dem got into the WH, all of those actions were undone.
The one for pushing federal programs down to the states is another one that would likely require heavy action by Congress. I’m picturing something like what Sweden does where people pay federal taxes, but all the Feds do is set some oversight on the programs that are suggested. Example here would be education. Each state puts in a plan for what they want their education system to look like, complete with metrics and an overview of the programs, they ask for a certain amount of money, the feds review the proposal and then pass along the money when it is approved. Not a bad way to do things since every state already has a department of education in it. It pushes more to what works for each state as opposed to a one-size-fits-all approach.
I’d suggest if she is serious about getting the budget under control as POTUS, she should be saying she will evaluate each and every department under her umbrella, looking for duplication, looking for necessity, looking for efficiencies, etc. and then cutting those departments or programs that don’t pass muster. It is what fiscally responsible people do. But she really didn’t mention that. She just put demands on Congress to take specific actions. Not a good game plan.
Another things she didn’t address at all was border security. That is a glaring omission.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
