OFFLINE

So, it seems Americans are at an impasse when it comes to the future.

Right now, with no changes, the deficit will be $1.5 Trillion this year and our national debt is $15 Trillion.  If you include the "unfunded" mandates ... existing entitlements of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid ... and now Obamacare ... that number's over $100 Trillion.

Some think the way out is to continue spending in a big way to stimulate the economy.  Some think we need to go the opposite direction ... massive cutbacks.

So which camp are you in?  And why?

If you're in the latter, where would you cut?  And given that most of the Federal budget is in the entitlements, would you be willing to give up some?

OFFLINE

It's common sense to me - you can't spend what you don't have.

So cut the spending..... I know it hurts. And nobody wants to be the one who is affected by the cuts- but it HAS to happen.

If you ran your small business- or household- the way the government is running..... you'ld be out of business or in bankruptcy.

OFFLINE

I believe that it has to be cuts.....for too long we've been living "high off the hog" -- and too many people are certainly enjoying "free" entitlements (which are certainly NOT free!).  I believe the time for privatized Medicare/Medicaid and also Social Security are the ONLY way to get us "back on track".  We also have to learn that word NO!  I still remember getting told no when I was growing up -- at the time I threw a fit (which we all would) but eventually I understood WHY my parents had said it...and it was fine.  I'm thinking that our government is way too big also....we can start cutting our spending there...and also stop all the "pork barrel" funding that goes through (based on who is in charge).  It'll be a tough go...but I do think that we are tougher!

OFFLINE

Hmmm...difficult question to answer quickly, and a bit of a yawn in a longer form...maybe I'll try somewhere in between

And I guess that was the short answer...somewhere in between.

What has changed from the last budget surplus?  Huge, unexpected expenditures in homeland security and military actions originally and even more recently huge revenue reductions due to recession, high unemployment rates, and various tax cuts.  I'm not making an argument against those military actions...I actually called for them to happen long before they did...but they are very expensive and will continue to be expensive for the near future.  I'm not saying that the formation of the vast homeland security complex was wrong either.

The recession has happened.  We could probably point fingers of why, but that won't regain the money.  And while the recession is past, unemployment numbers will be high for a significant time still.  I was for the cuts when they were temporary and put in place during the last administration.  I still believe that letting them expire was the best option...but that was only if all of them expired.  If some of them were to be extended, all of them should.

Cuts are necessary.  But you can't just go in with a machete and hack away.  Some is safety money, some is investment money.  Many in themselves will probably seem insignificant.  We must also increase revenue.  It wasn't a fast problem, there will not be a fast fix.  And if, when the time comes, there is a surplus, there must be some kind of mix between decreasing the debt and saving for future annual deficits.

OFFLINE

I got this from Wikipedia:

For 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws remain unchanged, the federal budget will show a deficit of close to $1.5 trillion, or 9.8 percent of GDP. The CBO projects total revenues of $2.228 trillion and total outlays of $3.708 trillion for a deficit of $1.48 trillion for 2011.

I'd manage it like a businessman would in dire times.

Fact.  Every business leader knows there's fat and fluff in every large operation.  Make that even more true for the Federal Government since there's no competition nor market incentives to make it operate efficiently.  So I'd put a 20% cut in budgets across the board.  They'll whine about it.  But those in leadership, with budgetary responsibility will figure it out.  And if they don't, they're not qualified for their jobs ... they should be fired.

That's $444 Billion.

Second, shut down the Department of Education.  It makes zero sense (other than Federal control of what happens locally) to send my tax dollars to D.C. just for the bureaucracy to gobble some of it up and send it back to my state.  For example, it's my understanding that for every $17 Floridians send to Washington, we get $11 back.  Why?  What for?  Not good.  This bureaucracy is not necessary.

That's $50 Billion.

Third, the number of Federal employees has exploded ... to 2.15 million.  Hiring freeze.  Immediately.  Rescind the 16,500 new hires in the IRS for Obamacare and the Justice Department.  And an across the board cut in pay of 10%.  Let Federal employees operate just like the rest of us ... phase out pensions and have them pick up part of the costs of their health insurance.

Amount unknown, but significant.

And abolish the friggen IRS.  Most people don't know it but the IRS is only about 100 years old ... for half of the history of America, we didn't even have it!  Go to a flat or fair tax system that taxes consumption rather than production.  They're about $13 Billion ... by simplifying, we should be able to reduce costs by 75%.

Another $8 Billion.

I just reduced the deficit by a half trillion.  But that's not even close.  Still have another trillion to go.

Other known, non-necessary funding

Planned Parenthood ... birth control and abortions are personal responsibilities.
NPR ... not needed.
National Endowment of the Arts ... I love art but not needed.
The U.N. (about $5 Billion) ... totally impotent, corrupt organization

Other than that, the following is the budget.  Hack away!  And I PROMISE that if you peruse it, you'll see some ridiculous stuff.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget.pdf

And I almost forgot something very important.

I'd change how the fat, corrupt Congress is paid.  I'd put them on an incentive system like real world executives ... make 90% of their pay and benefits contingent upon them meeting their objectives.  And those objectives are to balance the budget in real terms.

OFFLINE

Also up for review ... $58.5 Billion in foreign aid.

OFFLINE

In my opinion, if the Federal Government keep having the Federal Reserve printing money to pump into the economy it will get to a tipping point. A place where, if the economy starts taking off, the Feds wont be able to pull back the “extra” money fast enough and it will lead to hyperinflation. So all the spending is not good and cuts will have to be made.

IMO there are too many bureaucratic offices and employees (Federal employment is the fastest growing sector). If an honest audit was made, then any department that has not shown that is actually helps should be eliminated. We have 5+ federal departments that deal with employment when only 2 have ever shown that they helps citizens get a job either through training or education the others have shown no help at all either in the public or private sector. And why do we need a Department of Education (DoED), it was not founded until 1979. Every time a similar position was formed, prior to 1979, it was not a cabinet level position nor thought to be part of the Federal mandate as outlined in the Constitution. As thus, an intrusion to into local (State) affairs.

Next look at doing another, audit like in 1985, with SS and SSI beneficiaries. Why should someone who is getting Military retirement pay, a pension from a job they held after their time in the military also receive a SS check. Or someone who can climb a ladder, use a pneumatic nail gun to put siding on the second story of their home be receiving a SSI Disability check? Why are people who have immigrated (legally or illegally) here, but have never paid into Social Security, able to receive a check? I know several people who fit both scenarios.

Foreign aid? That is a really big one for me. Why are we sending money to Nations that are hostile towards the US, with known corruption where the money isn’t getting to those who need it or with no government that is accountable for the funds being sent?

Military. Pres. Eisenhower warned Pres. Kennedy to bring troups home or we would become overwhelmed with the cost of being the police of the world. Why are we spending money for our troups to be in other nations? I am not referring to war but bases in other nations that have militaries of their own but expect us to be there for them. Sell those bases back to the host Nation and bring our troups back home to help secure our borders from the illegal aliens that are coming across them (there is a prison in California that houses illegal aliens from over 80 different countries ready for deportation). Also, stop paying hundreds of dollars for tools and equipment that can be bought at the local hardware, office supply, retail store, ect… for much less ) e.g. hammers, toilet seats, file cabinets. And if a contractor over charges then put a hefty fine on them with the possibility of price gouging charges if the bill submitted it too extreme.

Federal workers pay should be cut to reflect the average pay of the same job in the public sector. Congressional pay and office budgets should be cut in half at least. With raises tied in to cost of living.

The U.N. Why the bloody blue blazes are we flipping the majority of the cost for an organization that has at every turn done everything they could to slam the US or tell us what we are to do. Are we not a sovereign nation? Do we not have the supreme law of the land the Constitution to rule our Country? Why should a body of foreign nations with corrupt governments and admitted haters of the US tell us what we can and cannot do? Let another Nation take on the cost, responsibility and headaches of the U.N. and the deadbeat diplomats who refuse to pay parking tickets, speeding tickets and all the other fines for breaking the law.

I could go on and on, department by department but I would not want to put people to sleep.

OFFLINE

Sorry Scott, I got on my soapbox again. I will go to the corner for a time out.

OFFLINE

One department that was left out is the Department of Energy. This department was formed during the 'oil shortage' back in the early 70s. It is now a total waste of tax money.

OFFLINE

OFFLINE

OMFG Jann....that is just priceless..a.nd pretty damn scary...too!

OFFLINE

I'm still working on where...but in the meantime...

First, I would disagree with comparing the federal budget to a household or small business budget.  Income, or revenue, is not based on what you do, or how well you do it, but totally based on how well everyone else is doing.  It’s also large enough in scope that cuts in one area may very well cause costs in another.  It also has the problem of that even in the best of years you cannot build for a savings future…if there would be a surplus there are some that see a need to spend and others that want the revenue returned…your best year would be zero.

I would agree that 20% cut across the board would be a good place to begin.  But I’m not as sure that will be found.  If we were talking about making cuts from a period of surplus or balanced budgets, I would agree that 20% would be just the starting point.  But after continually searching for cuts for a decade, that amount may or may not be found.  For example, the mentioned $100 million cuts was from President Obama’s first cabinet meeting a couple of years ago, and made just as setting the first goal…not as this is all that is needed message.

Social Security needs to have some adjustments made.  Perhaps some changes to the retirement age.  It has been adjusted to cover the difference in life expectancy from the age of adulthood.  Perhaps it needs to raised again.  But that is best calculated by actuarial scientists.  Yes, there is fraud in the system…as in any system where significant money is involved.  But more investigations would increase the needed personnel and funds.  I would also have a hard time saying that those that put the most money into the program should give up their benefits just because they may not qualify on an as needed basis.  As many could guess, I would be against privatization for other reasons…but I’m trying to stick to just the budget.  It is possible that it would take up to $7 trillion dollars to change the system over.

I’m against earmarks.  I don’t believe they are always the best choice of projects…but I wouldn’t go as far as to say that they are all bad projects.  There is a problem with orphaned earmarks especially.  I also don’t think they are nearly as effective vote-getters as some politicians believe.  But just sticking to the budget theme…earmarks just direct spending, not increase it.  For example, if there is an earmark for an interstate freeway project that comes from the money that has been decided to improve the interstate system’s infrastructure.  There might very likely be more important areas that need to be addressed more than this project that do not funded because of that earmark.

The Department of Education’s budget is mainly the funds for higher education Pell grants, work study programs, advanced degree grants, funds for assisting schools with technology and continuing teacher education programs.  Before it was a department level programs were scattered…it was able to cut more than 40% of personnel once they were centralized.

Throughout the late 80s and 90s, the numbers of federal employees were decreasing.  In the last decade they have grown back.  This growth has almost all been in a few areas.  Homeland/Border security, the Justice department to cover all the criminal and correction needs, and the Veterans Administration dealing with the increased needs of physically and psychologically injured soldiers.  I would find it difficult to say that these increases were not necessary.  Federal employees have been paying about the same percentage as most private workers for their insurance, I’m not sure if they should be required to pay more than that amount.  Federal/private pay is difficult to determine, there is so few direct comparison of similar jobs.  The biggest studies that determine that federal pay is greater tend to just take overall averages of the groups.  They fail to adjust to take into account that federal jobs have a much higher advanced degreed workers and a much, much lower percentage of non-collegiate degreed workers.  The smaller studies that have shown that similar positions are paid less by the government usually fail to include benefits such as paid days off, etc.

The latest gulf spill disaster was in part caused by the companies deciding to skip over some safety expenses.  One of the biggest functions of the Department of Energy is to ensure the safety protocols of nuclear energy.  I’m not sure if I trust the companies to regulate themselves.

What little investment is spent on free/low cost contraception and family planning education might be worth the money.  Abortions are not allowed to be covered with federal funds.  Increasing children into already poverty areas will just increase spending first with health, then with education, and sadly, but most likely increase police and prison spending.

It is difficult to determine how much the United Nations have cost us, or cut our spending needs.  It has brokered more than 170 peace agreements.  Some may claim that we would never have been drawn into any of those problems.  Some may claim that even a small percentage would have cost us more than what we spent on diplomacy.  It is impossible to tell with any certainty.

The most significant part of our current foreign aid investing is in the reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  A minimum of 90% of any foreign aid is required to be spent on US products and services.  We are a world power, you cannot remain so and also be isolationist.  During the Cold War we spent at least 2% of GDP on foreign aid, it is now less than a quarter of one percent.

OFFLINE

the thing that's so farcical to me, is how you keep hearing about the 2010 budget deficit, and the 2011 budget deficit, but how can there be a budget deficit if there haven't been any budgets passed since 09? one of the main problems with the federal budget is that it works off of baseline accounting. in other words, they automatically factor in a certain amount of increase for each year in programs and departments. so if they project a department's budget is supposed to grow 10% annually, but then they only increase the spending by 5%, then they count that as a 5% budget CUT, even though it was a 5% increase over the previous year.

if it were me, and i were asked to find ways to reduce the budget, i would first start with programs that don't provide vital services to americans. cut out all the foreign aide, cut out the funding for things like npr, acorn, national endowment of the arts. i mean there are SOOOOOOO many programs out there that receive federal funding that i can't even scratch the surface. and these aren't services that the federal government has a responsibility to pay for. anyway, i think we can make some pretty significant gains by starting with things like this first, and then start working on entitlements. but what a lot of big government types like to do, is to start by cutting back on the things that the people really need, as if to say see what happens when you cut government? it's just too painful.