Fiscal Hawks Squawk

This is one of our major prolems with the Federal Government:

Fiscal hawks balk at budget cuts - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

Until we begin to face up to hard choices we will never get spending under control.

We were just discussing this last night - and I pose the question to everyone, what part of the federal budget which touches you directly are you willing to see cut?

Would you have been willing to forego the widening of 331? Would you be willing to be responsible for getting your kids back and forth from school with no federal funding for transportation? How about mail service? When someone proposed stopping mail delivery on Saturday, everyone howled. (Personally, I could cut back to Mon/Wed/Fri and be satisfied).

I'm not being a wiseacre, I'm serious. Think of one direct or indirect benefit you get that you would be willing to forego, or cut back on.

We were just discussing this last night - and I pose the question to everyone, what part of the federal budget which touches you directly are you willing to see cut?

Would you have been willing to forego the widening of 331? Would you be willing to be responsible for getting your kids back and forth from school with no federal funding for transportation? How about mail service? When someone proposed stopping mail delivery on Saturday, everyone howled. (Personally, I could cut back to Mon/Wed/Fri and be satisfied).

I'm not being a wiseacre, I'm serious. Think of one direct or indirect benefit you get that you would be willing to forego, or cut back on.

Excellent points. I would be willing to cut Saturday mail and cut school transportation funding, that should be handled locally. I'm sure we can think of some more if we try.

"DeMint and other GOP senators plan to offer legislation Thursday aiming to balance the budget and ban congressional earmarks for one year."

I'll be anxious to see the legislation that the GOP senators offer. I like the idea of banning all congressional earmarks for one year.

"DeMint and other GOP senators plan to offer legislation Thursday aiming to balance the budget and ban congressional earmarks for one year."

I'll be anxious to see the legislation that the GOP senators offer. I like the idea of banning all congressional earmarks for one year.

Why stop with one year? Why not just ban them.

Why stop with one year? Why not just ban them.

I agree!!

Not close

Excellent points. I would be willing to cut Saturday mail and cut school transportation funding, that should be handled locally. I'm sure we can think of some more if we try.

Until we quickly address the growth in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, cutting out Saturday mail and parking school buses is useless as a screen door on a submarine.

I would have said teats on a boar hog but no one would have caught it.l

"DeMint and other GOP senators plan to offer legislation Thursday aiming to balance the budget and ban congressional earmarks for one year."

I'll be anxious to see the legislation that the GOP senators offer. I like the idea of banning all congressional earmarks for one year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Somebody forgot to tell Cornyn.

Until we quickly address the growth in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, cutting out Saturday mail and parking school buses is useless as a screen door on a submarine.

I would have said teats on a boar hog but no one would have caught it.l

Step one would be to outlaw raising the debt ceiling. It makes me sick that these politicos will drag bank CEOs in front of panels and wag their fingers at them for predatory lending, and then the same crew simply raises the limit on the Federal credit card once they 'max it out'

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee has ferociously criticized the spending programs under the Obama administration, also takes exception to the proposed cuts for NASA, some of which will be felt in Houston, home of mission control.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32429_Page2.html#ixzz0fQLSlEx1
​

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Somebody forgot to tell Cornyn.

I agree - these politicians need to develop a spine!! Talking the talk without walking the walk is getting old on both sides.

Step one would be to outlaw raising the debt ceiling. It makes me sick that these politicos will drag bank CEOs in front of panels and wag their fingers at them for predatory lending, and then the same crew simply raises the limit on the Federal credit card once they 'max it out'

I've given out my share of "thanks" today but did not want to let this post go by without saying thank you

Step one would be to outlaw raising the debt ceiling. It makes me sick that these politicos will drag bank CEOs in front of panels and wag their fingers at them for predatory lending, and then the same crew simply raises the limit on the Federal credit card once they 'max it out'

Good point.

The question is will Americans have the spine to make tough choices.

There is NO amount of growth in the economy that will get US out of this situation without a combination of spending reductions and tax increases.

Any politician who says otherwise is peeing on your leg and telling you that it is raining.

"The truth? You can't handle the truth"

We need to begin by privatizing Social Security and medicare for everyone under 50 and turn medicaid over to the states. Abolish the Department of Education, Transportation and Housing and turn those functions over to the states.

Before you start hollering that the states cannot handle these things, I say great, maybe they go away. But each local entity can decide what they want to pay for.

We were just discussing this last night - and I pose the question to everyone, what part of the federal budget which touches you directly are you willing to see cut?

Would you have been willing to forego the widening of 331? Would you be willing to be responsible for getting your kids back and forth from school with no federal funding for transportation? How about mail service? When someone proposed stopping mail delivery on Saturday, everyone howled. (Personally, I could cut back to Mon/Wed/Fri and be satisfied).

I'm not being a wiseacre, I'm serious. Think of one direct or indirect benefit you get that you would be willing to forego, or cut back on.

Obama's budget for 2010:

$695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
$571 billion (−15.2%) – Welfare and Unemployment
$453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
$290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Defense
$164 billion (+18.0%) – Interest on National Debt
$11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Misc. Discretionary (pork)


It's interesting to note, medicare, social security, medicaid, welfare, & unemployment match the total income the feds took in through payroll taxes. Beyond that, we only generate about 300 billion in other forms of taxation. So, if we were planning to "balance the books", we'd have to eliminate everything below medicaid, because that extra 300 billion has to go to running the federal government, and the interest on all our debt.

We either cut everything below medicaid (including defense) or we have to be willing to touch a "third rail" or raise personal income taxes signifigantly on all income groups. (or a combination of all three!) Whatever we do we have to free up about 1.3 trillion. Start slashing!

Yes, things are really that bad!

Why is social security listed different from social security administration?

I thought Treasury actually made a profit this year - any chance for a repeat?

I think my proposal to tax politicians' campaign contributions is looking better and better!

And clipping $105 billion off the budget is a good place to start IMO, but I would like to note that THE 2nd biggest number on the list is defense!

Why is social security listed different from social security administration?

Discretionary spending (the operation of the department) vs. mandatory (checks mailed out).

I thought Treasury actually made a profit this year - any chance for a repeat?

This is the 2010 budget, ends in Sept., was enacted last year. The final tally on all this won't be known until then.

I think my proposal to tax politicians' campaign contributions is looking better and better!

And clipping $105 billion off the budget is a good place to start IMO, but I would like to note that THE 2nd biggest number on the list is defense!

That's a nice start, 100 billion down, 1.2 trillion to go! :shock: