cutting up the US Budget

[hellod9]

There's always a lot of talk about taxes and bloated government.

But when we get down to the nitty gritty, where is the bloat? What what bloat should be removed?

Which billions should be shuffled into oblivion?

I for one am against wasteful military spending. Billions of dollars worth of projects cloaked under the guise of 'national security' just doesn't jive with me. Plus, I'm not convinced that they make us safer, either.

the Department of Defense appropriations bill, passed earlier in 2007, contains nearly 2,200 earmarks worth $7.9 billion. That's 7.9 billion that probably just isn't necessary.

Oh, and then there was the $23.4 billion spent developing and maintaining nuclear warheads. Would it cost 23.4 billion to just get rid of them? That would be a damn fine investment. Maybe we could keep a few though...enough so that it costs us only a 5 billion a year? That'd get us into saving $18.4 billion a year....more than the total budget for NASA.

ANd then...heck, in 2008 they requested $8.8 billion for 'Missile Defense.' No thanks.

The total 2007 Military Budget was 439.3 billion...oh and that doesn't include the many more billions in 'supplemental funding' for the Iraq War.

The 2007 military spending was 3.24% of GDP(not including supplemental war funding). I would aim to get this back to the year 2000 levels 3.0%, a drop of around $33 billion.

Oh, and then there's the Iraq war.

I would definitely cut spending on that


what would you cut?

 

[Cuda1447]

Being more efficient with money would go a VERY VERY long ways. Government is anti-efficiency though.

 

[Xavier434]

I am more interested in using the money more efficiently on the services and projects that are already in place than I am interested in cutting anything. That doesn't mean that there is nothing which I would support the cutting of mind you, but I don't believe that is best answer in most cases concerning our budget.

 

[Moonbeam]

I would abolish all law except the Constitution and the Amendments and start over.

 

[hellod9]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I am more interested in using the money more efficiently on the services and projects that are already in place than I am interested in cutting anything. That doesn't mean that there is nothing which I would support the cutting of mind you, but I don't believe that is best answer in most cases concerning our budget.

Yes...but 'using money more efficiently' is meaningless unless you can connect it with specific numbers, specific changes, or at least measurable inefficiencies that you would like to improve.

Show me something concrete.

 

[StageLeft]

Cut back basically everything. I bet most departments could be scaled back. Kill the fat, keep the lean meat. Government is notoriously indolent and for good reason.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I am more interested in using the money more efficiently on the services and projects that are already in place than I am interested in cutting anything. That doesn't mean that there is nothing which I would support the cutting of mind you, but I don't believe that is best answer in most cases concerning our budget.

Yes...but 'using money more efficiently' is meaningless unless you can connect it with specific numbers, specific changes, or at least measurable inefficiencies that you would like to improve.

Show me something concrete.

Most sections of the government have their own budget departments as well as people whose job is to crack the whip if they feel things are not efficient enough in terms of spending. The problem in many cases is that the whip isn't being cracked enough or the bearers of those whips are being lazy. You'll get your concrete results as soon as the budget departments and those in charge of them start being more proactive.

 

[hellod9]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Cut back basically everything. I bet most departments could be scaled back. Kill the fat, keep the lean meat. Government is notoriously indolent and for good reason.

What exactly would you cut back? Please be specific.

 

[hellod9]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I am more interested in using the money more efficiently on the services and projects that are already in place than I am interested in cutting anything. That doesn't mean that there is nothing which I would support the cutting of mind you, but I don't believe that is best answer in most cases concerning our budget.

Yes...but 'using money more efficiently' is meaningless unless you can connect it with specific numbers, specific changes, or at least measurable inefficiencies that you would like to improve.

Show me something concrete.

Most sections of the government have their own budget departments as well as people whose job is to crack the whip if they feel things are not efficient enough in terms of spending. The problem in many cases is that the whip isn't being cracked enough or the bearers of those whips are being lazy. You'll get your concrete results as soon as the budget departments and those in charge of them start being more proactive.

OK. I'll wait here.

(twiddles thumbs)

 

[maddogchen]

i would cut the payroll of the congress and the president

 

[ericlp]

I think we should out source the presidents job.

We should take away some the powers of the president so he/she can not just start killing people... But year we should clean house and fire everyone and start over fresh with a 50% reduction in pay checks any they should also start paying for their own health care. Tho, if you become president and you suggested these idea's you'd probably get shot.

 

[Slew Foot]

I'd pretty much eliminate all the entitlement and handout programs, medicare/SS/welfare/food stamps/etc.. and a big chunk of defense spending. Probably cut the budget by 70%

 

[hellod9]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
i would cut the payroll of the congress and the president

Actually, I would probably increase it. There is less incentive to take bribes/lobbyist money if our elected officials are paid handsomely.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: maddogchen
i would cut the payroll of the congress and the president

Actually, I would probably increase it. There is less incentive to take bribes/lobbyist money if our elected officials are paid handsomely.

no, there really isn't. Their wallets would simply become even more fat than they already are...

I noticed that your entire OP focused on military spending of one sort, or another... I'm curious, what domestic cuts would you suggest?

 

[hellod9]

Originally posted by: palehorse
I noticed that your entire OP focused on military spending of one sort, or another... I'm curious, what domestic cuts would you suggest?

I would seriously re-work farm subsidies, ultimately lowering the total outlay on them significantly. Unfortunatley, I am having a hard time finding concrete numbers on this, so it is difficult to estimate the impact.

 

[BassBomb]

I'd seriously cut the Military spending and focus it on healthcare, schools

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I am more interested in using the money more efficiently on the services and projects that are already in place than I am interested in cutting anything. That doesn't mean that there is nothing which I would support the cutting of mind you, but I don't believe that is best answer in most cases concerning our budget.

Yes...but 'using money more efficiently' is meaningless unless you can connect it with specific numbers, specific changes, or at least measurable inefficiencies that you would like to improve.

Show me something concrete.

Most sections of the government have their own budget departments as well as people whose job is to crack the whip if they feel things are not efficient enough in terms of spending. The problem in many cases is that the whip isn't being cracked enough or the bearers of those whips are being lazy. You'll get your concrete results as soon as the budget departments and those in charge of them start being more proactive.

OK. I'll wait here.

(twiddles thumbs)

Hehe I didn't say that it was going to happen. That is just what I would like to see happen.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: hellod9

Originally posted by: maddogchen
i would cut the payroll of the congress and the president

Actually, I would probably increase it. There is less incentive to take bribes/lobbyist money if our elected officials are paid handsomely.

I disagree. we should use execution for corruption as less of an incentive to take bribes.

just joking, it doesn't work for China it probably won't work here.

But I don't think increasing it will be any less incentive. I think you'd just make them richer. People will try to get away with as much as they can.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
I'd pretty much eliminate all the entitlement and handout programs, medicare/SS/welfare/food stamps/etc.. and a big chunk of defense spending. Probably cut the budget by 70%

What do you believe those people who rely on those programs will do if we just cut them all one day? Keep in mind that I hate the lazy leechers as much as the next guy, but I would still like to hear what you believe the outcome would be beyond having a larger pool of tax money for our government to work with. Personally, I believe we will see a very large increase in crime, hunger, drugs, and homeless people.

 

[JS80]

I think a more realistic way is to cut entitlements that are already forecasted to bankrupt and freeze any budget increases and hiring for the next X years. That way you don't have unskilled ex-government workers on the street and you are effectively reducing the budget by growing GDP and keeping government stagnant.

 

[ayabe]

All aid to Israel stops immediately and outstanding loans are to be paid in full, with interest.

Farm subsidies for corporate farms, gone.

Eliminate the DEA, revoke drug enforcement funds from local police.

Defense spending:

1. Missile defense - gone. Outdated and ineffective.

2. DDX Destroyer program - gone.

3. Iraq war - over. No permanent bases.

4. Funding for research into new nuclear weapons - gone.

 

[Carmen813]

I would divert funds from military defense projects into alternative energy initiatives, because I think in the long run that would result in less middle east involvement. Namely a stress on a hydrogen based economy and more research into nuclear fusion and solar power.

I'd cancel Iraq and use that money to open up Medicare to the uninsured, given that it is currently one of the most efficient health management organizations in the world with proper management and implementation it could maintain that efficiency. The goal would be to reintroduce competition among HMOs, currently 90% of them control the health insurance industry and they regularly run about 40% overhead, compared to 2-15% for medicare.

I'd also work on having hospitals upgrade to electronic records storage and put a reemphasis on healthy living through the implementation of better funding for extracurricular sports in secondary school. I would provide tax incentives for those who abstain from smoking and obtain yearly medical checkups.

I would focus on creating a nationalized university system after the State Univeristy of New York setup. I would pay for student's tuition and books at these public universities in exchange for 10 hours a week of community service. I would also create a nationalized cirriculum for public schools, and adjust the way schools are funded so its no longer based on property values. I would deemphasize test scores as a measure of intelligence. I think it would also be important to attack poverty in city schools, as I believe that leads to more crime and less educated students.

THen once I was done with that, I'd have lunch.

 

[Vic]

Instead of just picking it at some fat based on a personal preference, I would propose some kind of PAYGO or balanced budget amendment, where budget deficits would only be allowed in time of war or national emergency.

The best way IMO to cut spending and make government more efficient, while maintaining those services that the people want, is to make sure the people are always footing the bill for it.

 

[fskimospy]

Just so people know, earmarks are not always bad. I know there's this idea out there that earmarks are always wasteful spending, or that they are somehow pork added on top of other things. Frequently earmarks are just ways of telling agencies to spend money they have already been allocated. For example: Homeland security has a billion dollars to spend on defending bridges. Someone will write an earmark that says "spend $20 million of that $1 billion on defending the George Washington Bridge". Something like that.

I don't care if you agree with how that spending allocation works or not, I'm just saying that when someone says they can save X dollars by eliminating earmarks, a lot of times it won't cut much spending at all because it's already allocated in a different way.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ayabe
All aid to Israel stops immediately and outstanding loans are to be paid in full, with interest.

Farm subsidies for corporate farms, gone.

Eliminate the DEA, revoke drug enforcement funds from local police.

Defense spending:

1. Missile defense - gone. Outdated and ineffective.

2. DDX Destroyer program - gone.

3. Iraq war - over. No permanent bases.

4. Funding for research into new nuclear weapons - gone.

China surpasses US as military power, takes over asia holds world economic hostage and has military might to back it up while US military might is on par with Canada.

Yea, great idea.