Where to lose the fat?
I am sure 90% of us who made New Year’s resolutions included one to lose weight (my goal is to lose 15 pounds) and it is consistent promise made to us by “fiscally conservative” politicians on both sides of the aisle. So if you were in charge where would you cut spending? Here are some areas I would trim down:
Military: Reduce our global footprint, specifically the 60,000+ soldiers in Asia and 100,000+ soldiers in Europe. I would redeploy some of them to Afghanistan and some to Border Patrol (in a non-military capacity).
Education: Return power to the States and eliminate No Child Left Behind
NASA: Focus agency on data collection satellites versus expensive and unnecessary human space flight.
Intelligence: Eliminate red tape added by DNI
IRS: Two for one special : – ) Get rid of personal income tax and a bureaucracy
I would also surgically dissect agencies such as the FCC, FDA and FAA. But these are just some starter ideas. If you had to put your money where your mouth is, what would you cut?
Category: Government
Loading ...
I wholeheartedly support your proposition to end the personal income tax and the bureaucracy and abuses of power that go along with it. However, you are only going a part of the way toward Liberty! End the banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve and the web of debt they have produced “on behalf of the citizens of the United States” and free our children and grandchildren of the financial slavery that is to come. Our centrally managed economy has produced nothing but bubbles, recessions and depressions. It is time to return to sound monetary policy. Return to the Congress the responsibility to “coin money, regulate the value thereof” as defined by Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
I must disagree with your proposal for the military. We currently have troops stationed in 130 countries around the world. Those troops are part of the Department of Defense. Those troops have absolutely nothing to do with defending our country. If they were, we would have no need for the Department of Homeland Security. Rather than allowing our military forces to become bogged down in offensive actions against rogue actors, such as Osama bin Laden, et al, use the provisions of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution to issue Letters of Mark and Reprisal. Bring the troops home and let Peace Corp volunteers build schools and perform medical services for impoverished third world countries.
Border fences give our country the appearance of East Berlin in the days of the Soviet Union. There are many federal and state laws that prohibit hiring of aliens not possessing a work visa. There are prescribed penalties for employers as well as aliens breaking those laws. Tear down the fences and start enforcing the laws.
Require Congress to read each bill on the floor of the House and Senate prior to calling for a vote. Further, require each bill’s sponsor to include the specific Article and Section of the U.S. Constitution that allows for the expenditure of funds that will result from passage of the bill.
Those are my suggestions.
/sec
The Fair Tax – that is a good idea.- and it can reduce the cost of the IRS.
Chosun1, I agree with what you are saying. But this thread is a starter thread (which is why I didn’t put all my ideas). I have no doubt Libertarians like us will actually suggest areas to reduce spending but I am more interested in hearing where fiscally conservative “Republicans” would cut spending. As far as the Fed and Immigration stances those probably warrant separate threads.
Reid, if spending cuts are done properly then even a Fair Tax wouldn’t be necessary and would further reduce the IRS. perhaps to nothing?
Amit, I am a conservative Republican from the time before the big government, adventurist, globalist neo-cons subverted the GOP. I do find myself aligned with the Libertarian party on a number of issues — but not all. I guess that would make me a “Ron Paul Republican.” I’ll proudly wear that label
/sec
“Require Congress to read each bill on the floor of the House and Senate prior to calling for a vote. Further, require each bill’s sponsor to include the specific Article and Section of the U.S. Constitution that allows for the expenditure of funds that will result from passage of the bill.”
I like that one. I would add that they should require each amendment to be read by the person who inserted it. Make for great youtube moments.
Amit,
Responding to your suggestions.
Military: I do not see how moving military personnel around like pawns on a chess board saves any money. If you are not talking about reductions in force you’re not going to save much.
Education: I am open to suggestions for the elimination or improvement of No Child Left Behind as long as the suggestions do not include removing the requirements for Standards of Learning testing.
NASA: While I am mildly opposed to the effort to send a manned mission to MARS (we can’t afford it) I am also opposed to ending manned space flight completely due to what I must admit is probably emotional reasons. For the time being I see nothing wrong with completing and continuing to support the international manned space lab.
Intelligence: If you are talking about eliminating central oversight of our various intelligence agencies and returning to the balkanized system we had previously I am against it.
IRS: You are speaking about something that is a hot button issue for me. I would find it extremely difficult to vote for anyone who is against some form of a progressive tax code. I consider a progressive tax code to be the American Way. If some of you must live under some kind of a flat tax then I suggest you move to Russia because they have a flat tax over there
Cut spending? I’m open to it. I might even be willing to compromise and accept spending cuts in areas I do not like. But as part of the compromise we probably need some tax increases (preferably progressive) in order to balance the budget.
Farm subsidies are a quick $20 billion per year you can ax, and thats only the “dirrect payments.” While your at it, you can get rid of the other “price support” mechanisms too that cost billions.
Most of what the Energy and Education Departments do are redundant and repeditive and should be left to the states.
EJ,
I think I agree with you on that. With prices rising for farm commodities there is (or at least was) room for decreases.
Problem is getting the reps from farm states to go along with it. They’re going to hold their iron in the fire against decreases while we call for increases elsewhere.
There is much to be saved by eliminating farm subsidies. To get a better idea of how much money is spent on farm subsidies, watch the movie “King Corn.”
Little David,
If you’re in favor of tax increases, you’re in luck. Over the course of the next few decades, your children and their children will see huge tax increases. Those tax increases will not fund any of the programs you might want. There will come a day of reckoning in the all too near term, when the entire federal budget will do nothing more than pay for Social Security, Medicare and to service the interest on the national debt.
Next time you hear a politician use the catch phrase “for the children.” perhaps you should ask that “public servant” to really do something for the children and remove the yolk of financial slavery that each child is born with.
No tax increases. No fair tax. Fiscal responsibility, NOW!
First of all, David, the Fair Tax is progressive. As it has been proposed, everyone gets a flat amount of money, let us say $10,000. Then, all purchases are taxed at a rate 0f 20%. Thus, those individuals who make less than $40,000 (and couples earning less than $80,000) would pay no taxes. (These earning exclude the check from the government.)
As one’s spending increased, their tax payments would increase. Let us look at a married couple, their earnings, taxes, etc., assuming $10,000 per person “prebate,” and a 20% tax rate on purchases:
Earnings Spending Tax Tax Rate
—————————————–
50,000 70,000 -6,000 -12.0%
60,000 80,000 -4,000 -6.7%
70,000 90,000 -2,000 -2.9%
80,000 100,000 0 0.0%
90,000 110,000 2,000 2.2%
100,000 120,000 4,000 4.0%
200,000 220,000 24,000 12.0%
300,000 320,000 44,000 14.7%
400,000 420,000 64,000 16.0%
500,000 520,000 84,000 16.8%
600,000 620,000 104,000 17.3%
700,000 720,000 124,000 17.7%
800,000 820,000 144,000 18.0%
900,000 920,000 164,000 18.2%
1,000,000 1,020,000 184,000 18.4%
(I do hope this formats correctly!)
As you can see, it is progressive. Furthermore, it encourages savings and investment without the onerous rules on IRA’s and 401(k)’s. It would also encourage conservation via a second-hand market, as sales of used items would not be subject to the tax. (The tax on those items has already been paid.)
The only people who should have a problem with it are IRS and H&R Block employees.
Chosun1,
While I am in favor of only (at a minimum) decreasing spending and increasing taxes so that we balance the budget for now, I am not opposed that we take these steps to decrease the amount of burden we leave for future generations by providing a surplus.
I wish you would realize that my/our generations of taxpayers decreased taxes at the same time we increased spending.
If future generations are going to have to pay increased taxes, I think our generations are shameful in not taking on the yoke today.
Are you in favor of tax cuts? Are you in favor of leaving more of the burden to your grandchildren?
doh! how did I forget subsidies?!?! I must still be hungover. thanks EJ
what I’m really looking for in the comments are ideas of what areas to cut.
Jack,
You need to go back and look at the math.
Go do a 1040A for the average American (I analyzed $43,000 married with two kids) and came up with the average American paid an extra $2,000 in taxes each year. Now, this was dependent that the average American making only $43,000 spent every dime he made providing a roof and food on his table for his family. But with only a $43,000 income I do not think that is too much of a leap.
Go do the figures for yourself instead of depending on the “experts” who have a motivation to provide your figures for you. The wealthy have the means to employ numerous “experts” that will lie for them.
Mathematics do not lie. Go do the math yourself.
I estimate my own taxes would increase by about $5,000 per year.
How about abolishing all of the taxes that were put in to fund the Mexican-American war, the war of 1812, and so forth? Getting rid of the IRS is a fine idea – let’s go the step better and cut the size and scope of there Federal and State governments where it’s at all possible.
Dan Lyons,
Instead of speaking in generalities and past expenses, why don’t you get more specific in where the money goes today? What would you cut?
No more bailouts. Period! No more fake stimulus packages disguised as tax breaks for the sheep. Congress needs to grow a set and take their legitimate power back from the Executive and the neo-executive, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke.
NCLB is a good start but I’d completely eliminate the Dept. of Education, and Energy and Homeland Security, FEMA and whatever other bloated federal, One-Size-Fits-All department I could think of, especially those who require The States and Localities to put up funds and be attached to the Fed teat.
In other words, return power to The States and The People. We can take care of our own backyards, thankyouverymuch!
Eliminate the Prescription Drug boondoggle.
Eliminate foreign aid.
Eliminate lobbyists.
No more earmarks, no more pork-barrel spending.
Require congress to filter all bills through the US Constitution. That should cut spending A LOT.
Little David,
I’m proposing elimination of all federal spending that is not specifically authorized by the U.S. Constitution. The consolidation and expansion of power in Washington D.C. is nothing less than usurpation.
What you’re missing is that unless something is done now (and I don’t mean more government “stimulus”) there will be no money to fund anything other than Social Security, Medicare and interest payments on the national debt. If you doubt what I’m saying, please visit the GAO website and watch the video presentations on the topic. Here’s the link…
http://www.gao.gov/media/video/fiscal/windows/amfiscal.wmv
We’re engaged in a $1 trillion a year war. I’m not talking about the illegal combat operations in the Middle East. I’m talking about the “war on poverty” launched during the Johnson era.
The question is not what to fund. The question is what is legal to fund. All else is the responsibility of the several states, to fund – or not.
/sec
BTW… that $1 trillion a year war on poverty works out to $83,000 per family below the poverty line. We’ve been fighting that war for the better part of 4 years and are no closer to winning it. How much more money will we throw away in the interest of appearing to care before we realize that it was naught but a charade?
/sec
sorry… that’s the better part of 40 years (or 4 decades).
I followed the link you provided. Please realize that even if Social Security only was forced to pay only 78 cents on the dollar, Social Security is not the problem.
Would you agree that Medicare and Medicaid is the real problem? Would you not also accept that the real solution to this problem is solving the overall American problem with health care?
The health care problem is not just government’s. This same problem must be dealt with by the employer that writes your paycheck.
damn, I had forgotten foreign aid and earmarks. I’m really losing it.
Amit,
I like your joke I think its a joke
Foreign Aid and Earmarks are less than .1% of the budget
As a defense contractor here is the real deal. There is TONS of real waste in the Defense Department. Depending on how you look at it Defense Spending is over 50% of spending!!!!! The site is a bit biased antiwar but the numbers are legit.
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
I would go into specifics but alot of it is classified. Needless to say how many more missiles, tanks, bombs, and satellites do we really need.
Of course this is political suicide as an R since strong national defense is the big government for the Rs and Hampton Roads Tidewaters whole economy is almost entirely reliant on the Defense Industry. Heck Northern Virginia is over 50% and even many of the tech firms are connected to defense in some way.
Little David,
Please cite the Article and Section of the Constitution that indicates medical care is a problem or responsibility for the federal government. I’ve been all over that document and its Amendments and somehow I’ve missed it.
The problem is politicians making promises and passing legislation aimed at only their own political gain. They know the true fruits of their labor will never come to harvest during the span of their own lives. Indeed, they pass the true cost of these programs to their grandchildren.
Do you think for a moment that FDR and his cronies didn’t know that Social Security was nothing more than a giant Ponzi scheme?
Medicare is the largest problem on the horizon. In its current form, it will suck the life out of every federal budget in the coming years. When we can no longer fund our military, what becomes of our security? When we can no longer fund the so-called “entitlements” will the current recipients just accept the fact that the ride is over? It’s more likely they’ll take to the streets.
There are harsh realities on the horizon. We have an economic time bomb and the average voter is deaf to the ominous sounds
tick, tick, tick…
/sec
novamiddleman, I’m probably always half joking. regardless, even though earmarks are small in percentage they are used to buy off Congressmen to vote for larger projects so they actually do have a significant impact on the budget. and foreign aid is simply counter-productive. I’ll have to have a separate thread on that.
chosun1,
You asked:
“Do you think for a moment that FDR and his cronies didn’t know that Social Security was nothing more than a giant Ponzi scheme?”
I think FDR realized there was no way for a society to save for the elderly members of their society by saving money. Perhaps they could have accomplished saving for retirement by opening warehouses and saving current economic goods for later consumption, however further technological advances would have made the saved goods undesirable.
Now, perhaps America could have saved cash for the future by investing in foreign countries. But just how upset would you have been if we invested Social Security excesses in China?
Please understand I am not trying to say it is wrong for an individual to save for retirement. You as an individual can save for an increased share of things once you reach retirement. My point is that individuals can save, societies can not.
The only way to provide for our elderly is for the younger members of our generation to chip in. The Social Security system accomplishes this.
I am in fact going to start objecting to the labeling of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. It is not a Ponzi, it is a promise.
To get me to expound all you have to do is ask something like “How in the heck can you say it ain’t a Ponzi scheme?” or something like that and I will share my thoughts about it.
Social Security begain paying out immediately to persons over the specified age — even those who never paid a dime into it. It did so out of the money paid by subsequent “investors” rather than from returning dividends from the “investment.”. It relies on an ever-increasing number of new participants. In the event of a decreasing number of participants, there will be a shortfall. Perhaps you’d prefer to call it a pyramid scheme. I just call it what it is.
Former Mexican President Fox told Larry King that the United States needed a constant flow of people from his country into this one to ensure that the Social Security program didn’t fail. You can find the video of that interview on youtube.
Run our of money it will, and I’m quite certain we’ll hear people begin to complaining about the broken “promise.” It was never really a promise. It was wealth redistribution scheme designed to take wealth from the citizens of the states to the central fund of the United States government..
Further, why do you assume that the federal government is responsible for anything other than the enumerated powers defined by the Constitution? Remember, the federal government has nothing to give except that which it takes by force from its citizens.
Perhaps the cities, counties and states should start taking care of their own rather than expecting wealth redistribution from uncle Sam to solve all their local problems.
/sec
[...] Virginia [...]
???? ? ???????? ??????? ??? ??????? – ??? ????? — ????? ????? ??????.