If the implication is that only R's are disingenuous and will say anything to get re-elected then I completely reject the notion. That game plan is alive and well on both sides of the aisle.

The climate created by the media and the government has resulted in very black and white lines. There is no room for moderation and forgiveness. You're either on one side or the other. You're either a friend or an enemy.
As Rod Serling said, in the episode of the Twilight Zone titled The Obsolete Man..."In the eyes of the state logic is the enemy and and truth is a menace.

I would like to see Boehner gone too. I would also like to see Pelosi, Reid and McConnel hit the road as well. I don't know how either party can be defended. They both are responsible for where we are at today.

The only part of the letter that I would disagree with is "It is not the corporations in America where the problems lie". Large corporations shoulder plenty of blame in my view. The greed of these large companies is staggering. The pay for CEO's and executives is putting a choke hold on the middle class. Their do more with less attitude is certainly part of the problem.

Benghazi is clearly being politicized by the right with an eye on 2016. It is all part of the game in DC. It's too bad that they are doing this because it gives some cover to the other two scandals going on which do have merit and gives me concern about a government out of control.

There should be a check list that needs to be completed before any government agency, local, state or federal can ask for more taxes.

1) Has waste and fraud been if not eliminated, at least minimized?
2) Has the administrative costs been streamlined?
3) Can the private sector perform the same service for less?
4) Finally, is the decision made political in any way? (That one is a real son of a gun, but the most important. Political hacks really only are good at winning elections, not running government.)

Joan, you've nailed it. It looks obvious that in the face of tighter budgets, the go forward plan is to make it hurt. Instead of looking for waste, more efficient processes and cutting administrative costs, the plan is to make it hurt and try to avoid the cuts. Look at today's headlines with the TSA, same thing. Local, state and federal governments all have opportunities to make meaningful, smart changes, but most choose to make it hurt.

The answer to Robert Leavitt's question "And why, for all that money, do we receive overall worse outcomes than do residents of most other developed countries?" is politics, lawyers, greed and politics.

James, the reason your plan looks so easy is that you left out one very important element. You left out politics. It makes things much more complicated when your first consideration is winning the next election. Obama, Reid and Boehner are three of the most political leaders, I believe, in history. They are the most divisive, sorry, screw the country the party is more important than anything hacks ever.

10 to 100 billion dollars per year? This just doesn't add up. For the last two weeks, we have been given dire consequences for cutting 85 billion dollars. Thousands of illegals being set free, first responders let go, meat inspections not done properly and on and on. Yet, with all the reported need out there, a program like this moves forward? If this government was my spouse, I would cut up all of their credit cards.