| Author |
Message |
    
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5193
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 2:50 pm: | 
|
Love the cut to Vet benefits. Nice message that sends.
I say send Bush/Cheney/Rumjerk to Fallujah and let them patrol for a week or two with the kids they sent there to install a new Islamic regime. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 316
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Here is a rough breakdown on how the Federal Government spends it's (our) money:
38% - Social Security, Medicare, other federal retirement.
17% - Defense (excluding the wars!).
14% - Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, SSI, ect.
10% - Agriculture (including $10B in agribusiness subsidies), environment, transportation, student aid, housing, NASA, energy, ect.
8% - Interest on the Federal Debt.
7% - Unemployment and general social services.
3% - General government expenses.
2% - Veterans.
1% - All international activities, including U.S. embassies and all military and economic foreign aid.
This information came from the IRS website and is based on last years spending. This year's budget comes to $2.5 trillion.
Just a little information before someone suggests cutting foreign aid.
It seems to me that we cannot get away from the 800 lb gorilla in this scene, namely social security. If we are going to make meaningful cuts, we have to include it. And I am well aware that is political suicide.
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 691
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Chris, the problem is that SS was supposed to be outside the general budget That is, it would be self-funded. To include it in the general expenditures of our gov't is misleading. Just as SS revenue shouldn't be in the budget, neither should SS expenditures.
That's not to say it shouldn't be fixed. But including it is a red herring. (not saying you're including it arbitrarily, just that it's not supposed to be funded the way other programs are.) |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2015
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
I further suggest an additional tax of $1/gallon on gasoline, to encourage efficiency and also the use and expansion of public transportation. Jobs cut from the private transportation sector could be shifted to the public transportation sector.
This will reduce traffic congestion, reduce wear and tear on roads, reduce pollution, reduce accidents, reduce the number of cars junked each year, and reduce the health care costs associated with auto use and auto emissions (asthma, bronchitis, etc.).
Some estimates put the "whole" cost of gasoline at over $15/gallon, but much of this cost is borne at the macro level by society. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 1729
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
I can't vouch for its veracity but I found this a few years ago when I was discussing the issue with a friend.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer
Interesting (although not unexpected) responses from some posters. Especially the one where the first suggestion was to raise taxes even though the topic was about cutting (wasteful) programs.
As I've said before (and confirmed again this weekend) I pay plenty of taxes, no need to keep raising them, thank you. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 692
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
I also find it shocking that we pay 8% of our revenue to service our debt. 8%? Ugly. reducing that by only 1 percentage point would save over 25 billion a year.
I think we need to have cuts in most major categories. Defense? Absolutely. Milspec is a mess of outdated regulations that lead to ridiculously high prices for military purchases. There are redundant offensive and defensive systems being developed. Congress has also funded pork-barrel programs even when the Defense Department wanted to cut them.
Medicaid, and other welfare related items? Get people working and this will take care of itself. Give people incentive to work. Not just a stick, but a carrot too. Don't make people decide between working and getting assistance. Phase it out slowly so that people aren't given incentive to not step up in pay grade and risk losing benefits.
National subsidies? I hate to say it, but ditch them. We tell factory workers that if they can't compete with low csots overseas alternatives, they're out on their butts. But we give agri-business a special place in our hearts. Cut farm subsidies. If the gov't wants to buy food and give it away, that's one thing but don't pay people not to farm their land or store food until it spoils.
Increase fines on environmental abuse, and reduce the beaurocracy involved in enforcing the laws. Streamline the laws so there is less confusion about whether certain activities are legal or not. If a violator is found guilty of environmental abuse, they should be forced to reimburse the gov't for their prosecutorial expenses.
Trim NASA. Refocus on key missions, and dump the rest. Encourage commercial development of launch systems and let business handle commercial exploitation of space (with some oversite).
End subsidies on activities we want to discourage (e.g. oil refining, "sin tax" targets). We use our tax system to encourage certain social behavior. We should do the same with subsidies. I don't think there are any more tobacco subsidies, but if there are, ditch them. Don't take with one and and give back with the other.
For some functions, follow a business model rather than a gov't model. But only where it makes sense.
Allow Medicare to negotiate with suppliers. Walmart can do it, why can't Medicare?
There are also lots of little ways to save administratively. I don't know how many people here have worked at a government facility (at any level of gov't), but there is always room for improvement. As someone once said (I paraphrase), "A million here, a million there. Eventually we're talking about real money." |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 3330
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Chris P- Federal retirement! Yes, it is obscene! Every federal worker (after a certain number of years service) gets their salary guaranteed to them each year in retirement or something like that. THAT is crazy! Why is this never talked about? |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Cutting spending low enough is politically impossible. It can't be done. Even the "strict" budget just submitted doesn't come anywhere near close enough. We should raise taxes and I'd be proud to pay them. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1427
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 7, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
For all the programs that Mr. Bush is expected to slash in his budget proposal on Monday - from health care and housing aid to Amtrak - the cuts would total less than $15 billion next year and barely dent the deficit.
By far the biggest parts of the budget - Medicare, Social Security and military spending - would be immune from cuts and are expected to grow rapidly for years to come.
On top of that, Mr. Bush's plan to replace part of Social Security with private savings accounts could require additional trillions of dollars in borrowing over the next several decades.
The cornerstone of Mr. Bush's budget strategy is a belief that vigorous economic growth, spurred by supply-side tax cuts that were designed to provide incentives for upper-income Americans to produce more wealth, will generate big jumps in tax revenue that gradually reduce the deficit.
At first glance, he would seem to have grounds for optimism. After all, surging tax revenue did come to Washington's rescue during the economic boom of the 1990's, pushing the budget from the red to the black. Republican and Democratic budget analysts, however, say that such an event is much less likely this time around. The contrasts are stark:
¶Through most of the 1990's, government spending grew at a snail's pace. But government spending soared during President Bush's first term and is expected to keep growing rapidly as the nation's baby boomers start to claim old-age benefits.
¶In the 1990's, the biggest jump in revenues came from high-income taxpayers who made enormous profits in the stock market bubble that ended in 2000. But Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 reduced rates on the wealthiest taxpayers and cut in half the taxes on dividends and capital gains, making it all but impossible for revenues to rise at a substantially faster pace than economic growth.
¶Mr. Bush's own projections leave out the cost of rolling back the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax that is expected to ensnare tens of millions of middle-income households as incomes rise with inflation. Republicans and Democrats both want to prevent such a trap, but a fix would cost roughly $500 billion over the next 10 years.
"I don't think we are likely to see a repeat of the 1990's," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the Republican-appointed director of the Congressional Budget Office. "We can't grow our way out of this."
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 12:07 am: |
|
Mark,
You hit it on the head. The subsidies aren't going anywhere, unfortunately (and it is great political theater by the Repubs). And since I live out here I know first hand the power that won't be given up on both sides. Even though I'm in a red state my rural area has many democratic representatives. Mine is Sanford Bishop who is a fairly senior ranking member and has the power of the black caucus behind him. He's a dem and I've heard him say in public many times that those subsidies aren't going anywhere on his watch. Although the game is being played in DC the players know who sign their contracts every few years. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 317
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Themp: If you are going to quote the NYT, please give them credit.
Ffof: It's not just the federal workers. State employees and those at the local level have similar deals involving job security and pensions. Including those here in MSO. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1429
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
Even better article in today's NYTimes about the budget. It really makes the point very strongly that no meaningful reductions in spending are even possible, much less likely.
It's interesting, because this is the hard part, that many republicans take as axiomatic that they have the stomach for. But I think a lot of people are about to be reminded that every dollar spent has its constituents, and a lot of them are middle class.
I think the point of Southerner's comment is that black democrats are equally to blame for farm subsidies(?). Not sure. Fair enough. Point is strangely made but true. Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan are among the largest receivers. It's the fact that these programs get people elected from both parties that means they are unkillable.
Interesting web site:
http://www.ewg.org/farm/findings.php |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1437
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
"The Congress doesn't have to stick to these (White House) priorities," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican.
"There are some programs in there I have heartburn about."
House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican, warned his panel not to refuse spending cuts unless they could come up with alternative savings.
"Put up or shut up," he said. "You've got to come forward with a proposal. It's not good enough to just complain."
But Nussle admitted he was worried about proposed farm-aid cuts which could affect Iowa, a farming state where he may run for governor. "I don't like some of the cuts I've seen in the agricultural budget," he said.
|
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1263
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
There is only one solution--a monarch with absolute power to determine who gets subsidies and who doesn't. Democracy American Style is too messy and prone to gridlock over special interest issues. Like the House of Saud, if we one monarch proves to be ineffective, then his brothers/uncles/vassals will push him out and get someone better. Heck, we can even short-circuit Bin Laden by declaring it the Caliphate and turning Mecca into a Disney theme park.
I think the budget quandry has got to my mind. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 3340
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
WHat would be the fallout if federal retirement plans were cut? |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1443
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Less qualified federal workers. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 696
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
is that possible?  |
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 1550
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
No |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1820
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 - 9:34 pm: |
|
"Every federal worker (after a certain number of years service) gets their salary guaranteed to them each year in retirement or something like that."
We have a family member who is a federal retiree and was fully vested, I believe, and his pension is nowhere near what his salary was, so I don't think this is correct. Perhaps it is true for certain categories of federal workers, but not all of them. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 1444
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
I have several family members who are or were federal workers, and I have to say that slighting this huge group is unfair and stupid. Many people are drawn to federal employment out of a desire to serve. The work itself is often unlike work you would get to do anywhere else. Many federal workers have highly specialized areas of expertize (demographics, statistics, etc). There are problems with federal work rules, but don't confuse Federal Reserve Economists or Treasury Dept fraud specialists with people at the NJ DMV who don't act nice. These people are keeping you safe and working hard and get little recognition for it. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2031
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Government Factoid Of The Day:
Bush has never vetoed a single spending bill. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2917
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
Whether federal civilian and military personnel are under or over-compensated is a worthy topic of debate.
However, what is criminal is that we are not fully funding the retirement plans for these people. This is a huge government obligation that is being dropped on the future. It shouldn't be too difficult for the actuaries to calculate how much we need to spend it each to fully fund the retirement plans for these folks. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page