Where The Heck Do We Start Cutting?

[uscitizen]

Reduce congress's staffs by the unemployment percentage.

Actually cut about 1/2 of overseas military spending by closing 1/2 of the bases. That would save about 250 Billion or so a year.

Fire all contract military employees. Esp the overseas ones, that would not even impact the unemployment rate.

cut all new highway construction, focus only on maintaining what we have.

A 5 yr moratorium on new government building construction.

Make new laws with TEETH in them about Medicare/Medicaid farud and hire new investigaorttor and agressibly chase down ALL forms of fraud and corruption in our government programs.

 

[zzzz]

Interesting chart here. Expenditures have steadily climbed at the same rate but income has not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Close most WWII, Korea and Vietnam bases.
Stop all foreign aid.
Cut entitlements.
Cut every manner of "ear mark".
Cut salaries of all three branches of government.
Root out fraud from every program.

Reform SS.

1. Entitlements....

It seems to me that entitlements are like contracts. They must be enforced for folks who are currently receiving benefits. We've made promises, and individuals have made their contracts/commitments based on same....children in college, mortgages, car payments.

Changes should be made, but only for future recipients. And lag time for the changes should five to ten years.

2. Same objection to cutting salaries of government employees, and for the same reasons. Freezing salaries five to ten years hence, would allow folks to make informed decisions about the future.

3."The average federal employee earned $81,258 per year in 2009. The average private-sector worker earned $50,462. When benefits are added, the private-industry worker gets $10,500, while the federal employee gets $42,000- or more!" Federal workers earning double their private counterparts - USATODAY.com

The traditional understanding about government work is that one gives up remuneration for security....clearly this is no longer true.

a. The disparity has grown from 66% in 2000, to 101% in 2009. Federal Employees Continue to Prosper | Cato @ Liberty

b. “An apples-to-apples comparison shows that the federal pay system gives many federal workers significantly more compensation than they would get in the private sector. The total premium costs taxpayers $40 billion (according to Richwine and Biggs) or $47 billion (Sherk) per year above market rates.” Federal Pay Still Inflated After Accounting for Skills | The Heritage Foundation

c. In addition to the lack of fairness, consider the effect on society if we incentivize government work as opposed to private work, and business creation…and the effect on innovation and productivity.

4. The plan: low taxes, or at least no change, and cuts in spending. Business is well aware that 70% of our GDP is the production of red tape.

If we encourage and support business, the increase in revenue will move us out of the fiscal morass in which we now fiind our nation. The policies should be those of Harding, Coolidge and Reagan, not those of FDR and Obama.

 

[Modbert]

Where The Heck Do We Start Cutting?

hmmm... maybe we should take a closer look at the big purplish bit?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE[/ame]

 

[Flopper]

1. George Washington had four cabinet departments. Since then we’ve added fourteen new departments, and reduced by two (Navy Department became part of Defense, and US Post Office became a quasi-corporation). How many are in line with constitutional requirements, and how many could be dispersed as state functions?

a. Department of Energy should be eliminated; President Carter created it to minimize our dependence on foreign oil, and to regulate oil prices. Good job? This department is tasked with maintaining and producing nuclear weapons. Why? What does the Pentagon do? And management of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve could, as Clinton suggested, become an outside entity. It also disperses ‘stimulus package’ funds. And it runs an appliance-rebate program, and ‘Weatherization Assistance Program,” and for this it received an additional $37 billion in ‘stimulus’ money, doubling its annual budget.

b. Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states. So where is the impetus for its creation? Unions. The National Education Association (NEA) “In 1972, the massive union formed a political action committee…released ‘Needed: A Cabinet Department of Education’ in 1975, but its most significant step was to endorse a presidential candidate- Jimmy Carter- for the first time in the history of the organization.” D.T. Stallngs, “A Brief History of the Department of Education: 1979-2002,” p. 3.

When formed, its budget was $13.1 billion (in 2007 dollars) and it employed 450 people. IN 2010, the estimated budget is $107 billion, and there are 4,800 employees. Wanting to Abolish the Department of Education Is Not Radical - Mona Charen - National Review Online

“In November 1995, when the federal government shut down over a budget crisis, 89.4 percent of the department’s employees were deemed ‘nonessential’ and sent home.” Beck and Balfe, “Broke,” p.304


2. If you want a real eyeful of potential cuts that would save billions, …

a. The GAO says the federal government made at least $98 billion in ‘improper’ in 2009. White House reports $98B in improper government payments - Nov. 18, 2009

b. Federal auditors rated every government program, and found that 22% of them, $123 billion in spending, were ineffective! 50 Examples of Government Waste | The Heritage Foundation

c. Did you know that the CBO reports a vast number of cuts that would save a fortune? http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10294/08-06-BudgetOptions.pdf Here are a few:

i. The CBO also considered the option of cutting the Airport Improvement Program that provides grants to airports to expand runways and improve security, saying this would reduce spending by $10.7 billion through 2019.
ii. The CBO also considered the option of cutting the Airport Improvement Program that provides grants to airports to expand runways and improve security, saying this would reduce spending by $10.7 billion through 2019.
iii. End subsidized loans to graduate students Ten year savings $18.8 billon
iv. End Department of Energy research on fossil fuels. Ten year savings $7.9 billion.

3. "Just days before Republicans take control in the House, the debate over whether to raise the debt ceiling continues to loom over the nation’s capital....a prime example of where rhetoric might meet reality for newly elected House Republicans....
vowing to oppose measures that would allow the Treasury to borrow beyond the $14.3 trillion ceiling Congress set in 2010. "
Read more: Debt ceiling a major test for GOP - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

This will be an interesting 'discussion.'

What do you think...raise it?

A number of the cuts you list make sense but doing away with the Dept of Energy and Dept of Education do not.

The budget for the Dept of Energy is 26 billion which is 2.5% of the deficit. The country needs and energy policy and a means of implementing it. Alternative forms of energy are critical to the future of the country. If the Dept of Energy were abolished, most of the programs and cost would be transfered to the Dept of the Interior. There is certainly room to cut programs, but abolishing the Dept. is not the way to do it.

Most of the budget for the Dept. of Education is returned to the states in the form of grants. Without the Dept. of Education much of the work of Dept would be duplicated by each of the states. Although we would see savings at the federal level, the total cost of education would rise.

The three areas of the budget we should be cutting are the Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. There is plenty of room for cuts in these areas without serious side effects to the country.

Cuts should be done as they are done in most businesses. Establish the percentage cuts for each dept. and leave it to the dept. to make the cuts, not Congress.

http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/11budget/Content/FY2011Highlights.pdf
Department of Energy - Science and Technology

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent

Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

$3.69 trillon budget proposal

1. Social Security $738 20%

2.National Defense $738

3. Income Security $567

4. Medicare $498

5.Net Interest $251

6. Health $381

7. Education $122

8. Veteran’s Benefits $122

9. Transportation $91.55

10. International Affairs $67.39
$3,575.94

 

[Modbert]

The policies should be those of Harding, Coolidge and Reagan, not those of FDR and Obama.

"Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua Green

It's conservative lore that Reagan the icon cut taxes, while George H.W. Bush the renegade raised them. As Stockman recalls, "No one was authorized to talk about tax increases on Ronald Reagan's watch, no matter what kind of tax, no matter how justified it was." Yet raising taxes is exactly what Reagan did. He did not always instigate those hikes or agree to them willingly--but he signed off on them. One year after his massive tax cut, Reagan agreed to a tax increase to reduce the deficit that restored fully one-third of the previous year's reduction. (In a bizarre bit of self-deception, Reagan, who never came to terms with this episode of ideological apostasy, persuaded himself that the three-year, $100 billion tax hike--the largest since World War II--was actually "tax reform" that closed loopholes in his earlier cut and therefore didn't count as raising taxes.)

Faced with looming deficits, Reagan raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years, mainly through closing tax loopholes for business. Despite the fact that such increases were anathema to conservatives--and probably cost Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, reelection--Reagan raised taxes a grand total of four times just between 1982-84.

This record flummoxes the best efforts of today's Reagan hagiographers to explain away. Peter Wallison, for instance, after proclaiming that Reagan "stayed the course against changes in his economic plan," later dismisses the president's tax increases as "a modest rollback" that "seems to have been the result" of his accepting a Democratic promise to cut spending by twice that amount. (Whatever happened to "Trust, but verify"?)

Reagan continued these "modest rollbacks" in his second term. The historic Tax Reform Act of 1986, though it achieved the supply side goal of lowering individual income tax rates, was a startlingly progressive reform. The plan imposed the largest corporate tax increase in history--an act utterly unimaginable for any conservative to support today. Just two years after declaring, "there is no justification" for taxing corporate income, Reagan raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period. In addition to broadening the tax base, the plan increased standard deductions and personal exemptions to the point that no family with an income below the poverty line would have to pay federal income tax. Even at the time, conservatives within Reagan's administration were aghast. According to Wall Street Journal reporters Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan Murray, whose book Showdown at Gucci Gulch chronicles the 1986 measure, "the conservative president's support for an effort once considered the bastion of liberals carried tremendous symbolic significance." When Reagan's conservative acting chief economic adviser, William Niskanen, was apprised of the plan he replied, "Walter Mondale would have been proud."

For those following along at home, Reagan raised taxes at least five times.

What's more, the number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000 under Reagan. (By comparison, under Clinton, the number fell by 373,000.)

Reagan increased the size of government, including adding what was the biggest Cabinet department until after 9/11, the VA.

The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

In 1980, Jimmy Caner's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.

If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.

The Reagan administration has been the most protectionist since Herbert Hoover's. The portion of imports under restriction has doubled since 1980. Quotas and so-called voluntary restraints have been imposed on a host of products, from computer chips to automobiles. Ominously, Reagan has adopted the bogus fair-trade/free-trade dichotomy, and he was eager to sign the big trade bill, which tilts the trade laws even further toward protectionism.

There's that big P word, Protectionism. Odd, I always thought free market "Conservatives" did not interfere in the natural order of the market in such a manner.

Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reagan sharply accelerated the massive military build up started by the Carter administration in response to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.[51] This buildup, a 40% real increase in defense spending,[52] included the revival of the B-1 bomber program, which had been cancelled by the Carter administration;[53] the deployment of Pershing II missiles in West Germany; the increased enlistment of thousands of troops; and a more advanced intelligence system.[53]

Bloated Military? Thanks Reagan!

Not long after being sworn into office, Reagan declared more militant policies in the "War on Drugs".[55][56] He promised a "planned, concerted campaign" against all drugs,[57] eventually leading to decreases in adolescent drug use in America.[58][59]

More Big Government Ronnie!

Perhaps the greatest criticism surrounds Reagan's silence about the AIDS epidemic spreading in the 1980s. Although AIDS was first identified in 1981, Reagan did not mention it publicly for several more years, notably during a press conference in 1985 and several speeches in 1987. During the press conference in 1985, Reagan expressed skepticism in allowing children with AIDS to continue in school, stating:

It is true that some medical sources had said that [HIV] cannot be communicated in any way other than the ones we already know and which would not involve a child being in the school. And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, 'This we know for a fact, that it is safe.' And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem.[68]

The CDC had previously issued a report stating that "casual person-to-person contact as would occur among schoolchildren appears to pose no risk."[69] During his 1987 speeches Reagan supported modest educational funding on AIDS,[70] increased AIDS testing for marriage licenses and mandatory testing for high risk groups.[71][72]

Ronnie ignores the CDC, meanwhile ignoring the AIDS epidemic. Gosh, imagine if Obama ignored a epidemic that was killing a large number of Americans and making many more sick. I don't think you would be lauding such a person.

Revisionist history does not stand up in the face of facts, learn that well.

 

[zzzz]

Cut Social Security? Do you realize the baby boom generation is starting to recieve SS now? If congress tackles this issue they will be out looking for a job in 2 years and they know it. Many people lost a good chunk of their retirement a while back and look to SS to fill some needs. Some have nothing but SS and if the politicos think they are going to mess with these peoples future so they can build a monument in Georgia ... well may God have pity on them!

 

[Flopper]

Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states.

Had their been any other choice other than forming a nation to deal with the British, the colonist certainly would have taken it. Many felt that the colonies should be independent states in a federation for mutual defense, believing each state should be able to operate independently. Thus after the war the ten amendment was ratified guaranteeing states rights.

States Rights has been a dying issue since the civil war. The seventeenth amendment, the civil right act, and numerous laws have eroded states right and for good reason. We are no longer 13 loosely connected colonies that fear government. We depend on the federal government not just for defense but for the definition of who we are as Americans, not Virginians, New Yorkers, or Floridans, but Americans.

Using the ten amendment as justification for transferring federal government responsibilities to the states is ludicrous. In most cases it would not be cost effective and it would create more problems than it would solve.

 

[Flopper]

Here are $343 billion in cuts....get crackin'!!

Funny, you guys from right always seem to miss the 1.5+ trillion in defense spending.

 

[Flopper]

Close most WWII, Korea and Vietnam bases.
Stop all foreign aid.
Cut entitlements.
Cut every manner of "ear mark".
Cut salaries of all three branches of government.
Root out fraud from every program.

Reform SS.

1. Entitlements....

It seems to me that entitlements are like contracts. They must be enforced for folks who are currently receiving benefits. We've made promises, and individuals have made their contracts/commitments based on same....children in college, mortgages, car payments.

Changes should be made, but only for future recipients. And lag time for the changes should five to ten years.

2. Same objection to cutting salaries of government employees, and for the same reasons. Freezing salaries five to ten years hence, would allow folks to make informed decisions about the future.

3."The average federal employee earned $81,258 per year in 2009. The average private-sector worker earned $50,462. When benefits are added, the private-industry worker gets $10,500, while the federal employee gets $42,000- or more!" Federal workers earning double their private counterparts - USATODAY.com

The traditional understanding about government work is that one gives up remuneration for security....clearly this is no longer true.

a. The disparity has grown from 66% in 2000, to 101% in 2009. Federal Employees Continue to Prosper | Cato @ Liberty

b. “An apples-to-apples comparison shows that the federal pay system gives many federal workers significantly more compensation than they would get in the private sector. The total premium costs taxpayers $40 billion (according to Richwine and Biggs) or $47 billion (Sherk) per year above market rates.” Federal Pay Still Inflated After Accounting for Skills | The Heritage Foundation

c. In addition to the lack of fairness, consider the effect on society if we incentivize government work as opposed to private work, and business creation…and the effect on innovation and productivity.

4. The plan: low taxes, or at least no change, and cuts in spending. Business is well aware that 70% of our GDP is the production of red tape.

If we encourage and support business, the increase in revenue will move us out of the fiscal morass in which we now fiind our nation. The policies should be those of Harding, Coolidge and Reagan, not those of FDR and Obama.

Since we have a split Congress you can count on any meaningful cuts in spending, which I doubt will happen, will be accompanied by some tax increase.

Ron Paul has promised a balanced budget. That should be a hoot.

 

[Toro]

Yes, yes, yes. Eliminate the departments of energy and education. Fire 20% of government employees. Eliminate "waste" and "fraud." Yada, yada, yada.

But until we start talking about cutting medicare, social security and defense, everything else is just window dressing.

 

[Zander]

Yes, yes, yes. Eliminate the departments of energy and education. Fire 20% of government employees. Eliminate "waste" and "fraud." Yada, yada, yada.

But until we start talking about cutting medicare, social security and defense, everything else is just window dressing.

Still, we can do without the window dressing.....

A dialogue only starts after the proposals are laid out. The GOP needs to put out a serious proposal that cuts every area, defense and entitlements included.

First on the list...overturning the boondoggle known as Obamacare.

 

[Mr. Sauerkraut]

the upper 1% of the us population is owning 40% of the us capital
the upper 10% of the us populations is owning 70 % of the us capital

that means 90% of the us population is fighting for the rest of the 30 % of the us capital.

and you´re asking, where your governement shall be cuttet.

 

[editec]

Those cuts you propose wouldn't amount to a fart in a hurricane.

 

[Ravi]

Decriminilize recreational drugs...save on cop salaries, court costs, and prisons.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Department of Education is, of course, unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government belong to the states.

Had their been any other choice other than forming a nation to deal with the British, the colonist certainly would have taken it. Many felt that the colonies should be independent states in a federation for mutual defense, believing each state should be able to operate independently. Thus after the war the ten amendment was ratified guaranteeing states rights.

States Rights has been a dying issue since the civil war. The seventeenth amendment, the civil right act, and numerous laws have eroded states right and for good reason. We are no longer 13 loosely connected colonies that fear government. We depend on the federal government not just for defense but for the definition of who we are as Americans, not Virginians, New Yorkers, or Floridans, but Americans.

Using the ten amendment as justification for transferring federal government responsibilities to the states is ludicrous. In most cases it would not be cost effective and it would create more problems than it would solve.

This thread deals with the economic roles of federal...and state governments.
I would love to see a thread that deals with the philosophical basis for the separations...which is where you seem to be taking this.

1. The essential functions of the federal government would be national defense, courts, intellectual property and international relations. Add to this the mandatory costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, plus interest payments, subtracted from expected revenue, the government is in deficit.

2. Any program that is currently federal could probably be handled better and cheaper by the states, figuring that local folks would keep a closer eye on the funds being spent…For example:

a. Federal housing programs should be completely disbanded, as they were the reason for the mortgage meltdown. And, clearly, the right to a home is not in the Constitution.

b. Federal highway and mass transit programs, budgeted at $41.3 billion in 2011. Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 was supposed to expire in 1972, “designed to create a national 41,250-mile highway system to be completed by 1969.” It has been expanded to 160,000 miles. The 18.4 cents federal fuel tax to fund the plan could be assumed by the states (I know, the Constitution gives the feds the power to establish ‘post roads’… can’t we assume that to have been done?). Federal Highway Funding | Downsizing the Federal Government

c. Federal agriculture subsidies are between $10 and $30 billion a year. This stems from the Depression, when farm families earned half of what the rest of the country earned. Today that is far from the case, and the subsidies primarily go to large operators and landowners- and celebrities. New light shed on farm subsidy payments - Politics - msnbc.com

 

[uscitizen]

Yes, yes, yes. Eliminate the departments of energy and education. Fire 20% of government employees. Eliminate "waste" and "fraud." Yada, yada, yada.

But until we start talking about cutting medicare, social security and defense, everything else is just window dressing.

Why cutr SS it is fine, or will be with a couple of minor changes.
Up the retirement age a couple of years and drop the upper limit that one pays SS contributions on.

Of course there is an issue of paying pack the surplus we spent, but that is a totally seperate issue.

 

[editec]

We start cutting the costs associated with EMPIRE.

That's where most of the WASTE is.

You wanna cut the Dept of ED, no problem but that's not going to solve much.

How about the 21% of the budget we're pissing away on Homeland Security?

Or the 16% we're spending on our military?

That's where the REAL PORK is, folks.

 

[zzzz]

...
b. Federal highway and mass transit programs, budgeted at $41.3 billion in 2011. Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 was supposed to expire in 1972, “designed to create a national 41,250-mile highway system to be completed by 1969.” It has been expanded to 160,000 miles. The 18.4 cents federal fuel tax to fund the plan could be assumed by the states (I know, the Constitution gives the feds the power to establish ‘post roads’… can’t we assume that to have been done?). Federal Highway Funding | Downsizing the Federal Government

I have a problem with this idea. A lot of roads are not wide enough as it is to handle the traffic and this is an interstate problem as well as a state problem. The states already tax fuel to make improvements (see below) or build bridges and usually they get matching federal funds.

Highest fuel state tax Gas Diesel
Wisconsin 32.1 32.1
New York 31.9 28.9
Pennsylvania 31.1 35.1
Rhode Island 30 30

Lowest state tax on fuel
Georgia 7.5 7.5
Alaska 8 8
Wyoming 14 14
Florida 14.5 27.2
New Jersey 14.5 17.5

Transportation crosses state boundaries and as you say this is the Feds area. It should stay that way.

The Energy Department has functions that would be hard to alocate to another department. Transportation of Nuclear weapons in this country could be handled by the army but building the bombs and research are not military areas of expertise. Do we privitise these areas? Disassembling federal departments may seem like a good way to reduce costs, yet invariably it will increase the costs in the long run.

Closing military bases are a good idea but as history has shown politicos want close your base but not theirs. Cutting expenditures, though it is a worthy cause, will not happen. Oh sure there may be a few billion here or there but overall, nothing! The only way to reduce the deficit is by increasing income and holding the line on expenditures. How to increase income? Get jobs back in this country and have Americans working. Surely with the increasing wage costs of the Chinese and other developing countries the cost/benefit of making things becomes more level.