Suggestions for how to reduce spending, balance the budget, and pay off the deficit

Looking at the 2008 federal budget, sans social security and medicare/medicaid:

total revenue: 2.0 trillion (includes the wars)
total spending: 1.7 trillion

If we could get back to that level of general spending, we'd be a great shape.

With SS and medicare thrown in, SS surpluses cancel out medicare short falls, so we were still about 300 billion short. That could be fixed by increased cuts, or even, some slight tax increases on the wealthy, ss reform, medicare reform, etc..

But first we have to get things under control. We also need to figure out how to fund ObamaCare, which is going to seriously jack our spending levels up in 2014. That's the next big crisis on the horizon. (As if we needed another.)

I have a suggestion for the county level -- they should not turn the A/C on full blast in county offices when the outside temp is less than 70F degrees, and in the summer when it is 95F degrees outside, they shouldn't attempt to create Artic like conditions inside.

I think Scooter was making a serious attempt at getting good thoughts on this. I think defense spending is almost a complete, secret country (or tumor) inside this nation of ours. The waste is staggering. The redundancy is staggering. If anything, the wars of this decade have shown that all the great fighterjets and aircraft carriers, and ICBM's can't do a whole lot in the type of wars we will be involved in in this century. And the absurd no-bid subcontracting that went on, and is probably still rampant, makes me kind of embarrassed.

Get rid of earmarks

This is the most sane thread I had read in the political forum in quite a while. SANITY, it can happen. :sowal:

Reinvent our health insurance system so that we concentrate on wellness; not disease. Right now, the payoff to the medical community and the insurance industry is on disease to the point where many preventive measures are not even covered by health insurance.

Eliminate all no-bid government contracts and fund more consumer "watch dog" positions, so that the tax payer has an advocate.

Restructure the public school system (K-12) for a year round program much like the college and university system has--too many school buildings and buses stand idle and vacant for too long.

Aggressively fund alternative energy and recycling projects and provide funding for creative small business start-up

Stop using prisons as an economic driver in our communities; concentrate on prevention and rehabilitation here too so that we don't have prisons full of people who are not contributing to society. Consider legalizing marijuana and tax it like tobacco and alcohol. Increases revenue and cuts down on LED helicopters looking for pot farms.

Generally, I think we need to look forward, not backward. We need a vision for where our country is going to fit in a global world.
We need to get creative. David Brooks said it pretty well today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/opinion/09brooks.html?_r=1&hp

In fact, the U.S. is well situated to be the crossroads nation. It is well situated to be the center of global networks and to nurture the right kinds of networks. Building that America means doing everything possible to thicken connections: finance research to attract scientists; improve infrastructure to ease travel; fix immigration to funnel talent; reform taxes to attract superstars; make study abroad a rite of passage for college students; take advantage of the millions of veterans who have served overseas.

I may be wrong, but I think earmarks are already worked into the budgeting and the earmark process is just how they spend it. If it isn't spent via earmarks, it will still be spent.

Changing the taxing system, so that it doesn't protect only the people with high-power tax attorneys at their disposal, and making it easier to file tax returns, could eliminate many unnecessary gov't jobs at the IRS, thereby reducing gov't waste.

Also, killing the idea of the "war on drugs," and shifting to real rehab for drug addiction, and education on the downside of harmful drugs, would save billions, as well as help people. Legalizing growing your own pot would also cut much money needlessly spent on trying to stamp out pot, and imprisoning people for non-violent crimes. When's the last time you saw a pothead get into a fight?

(I don't encourage people to go out and smoke pot, as though it is healthy for you. There are plenty of known downsides, but again, education and treatment dollars spent would be much less than those dollars spent on fighting a losing battle.) I'm sure there could be another thread dedicated to legalizing pot, pros and cons, so I won't elaborate.

I may be wrong, but I think earmarks are already worked into the budgeting and the earmark process is just how they spend it. If it isn't spent via earmarks, it will still be spent.

SJ, To your point is 2007. Here is an op-ed that was written by Rep. John Mica regarding transportation funding.

?The original fiscal year 2007 transportation appropriations bill included 1,155 highway and transit earmark requests from Members. Congress failed to pass that legislation separately, and when Congress did eventually pass a continuing resolution for that fiscal year all earmarks were eliminated. Then the U.S. Department of Transportation received all of the fiscal year 2007 highway and transit discretionary funding to spend without restrictions.

Rather than fund any of the 1,155 earmarks submitted by elected Members of Congress and considered by Congressional committees through an open, public legislative process, the Administration made all decisions on earmarking. Unelected bureaucrats, through a closed process, without public hearings, Congressional oversight or consultation, chose to designate $853 million in taxpayer funds to just five congestion pricing projects located in:


? $350 million to New York City,

? $158 million to San Francisco, important to the Speaker of the House,

? $133 million to Minnesota, important to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman,

? $138 million to Seattle, important to the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Chair, and

? $63 million to Miami, in the home state of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Ranking Member.

This is a clear illustration of what can and did happen in the absence of Congressional earmarking ? in the end, unelected bureaucrats in the Administration were given the opportunity to spend more than $1 billion on projects of their choosing.? ? John L. Mica

What I am suggesting is that earmarks not be included in the budget. I understand that if they were not earmarks they would still be spent, but thats pretty much what would happen with any reductions. Stop earmarks and reduce the tax, its a start.

What I am getting from Beachsand's post is that earmarks are just a way of designating where money already voted/budgeted to be spent is to be spent. It doesn't affect the sum, just the allocation - which seems to be all about politricks.

I would like to see each District reduce the amount they receive by a certain percent. That would get the balance sheets moving in the correct direction.

What I am suggesting is that earmarks not be included in the budget. I understand that if they were not earmarks they would still be spent, but thats pretty much what would happen with any reductions. Stop earmarks and reduce the tax, its a start.

So what's an earmark and if we don't tell federal agencies how to spend the money then how do we know what we are paying for?

For example, if the President allocates $4.881 billion dollars to the Civil Works Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to "do their job," is that an earmark? How about if the President allocates the following amounts in the following accounts:

$1.69B for Construction
$2.361B for Operations and Maintenance
$240M for Miss. River and Tributaries
$30M for Flood Control and Emergencies
$104M for Investigations
$193M for Regulatory
$185M for Expenses
$6M for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
$130M for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
-$58M for Cancellation of unobligated expenses

Is the above earmarking or programmatic funding? Or are they the same?

To take it to it's lowest level, the President also directs monies to projects and programs that his administration through the Office of Management and Budget have decided are in the Nation's interest. (I won't get into the details of their decision-making process as it is very confusing). For example, the Administration believes that $7M of the Operations & Maintenance Account should be allocated for the National Coastal Mapping Program. The Senate believes it should be $9.5M while the House says $0. The Corps themselves say that they need $13M. Is this an earmark?

My point is there are some programs that are earmarks and a number of agencies (such as the Corps) that work like a consulting firm where there positions are funded through project or program-specific earmarking. There is no annual allocation for all staff- it's project or program driven so without specific direction (i.e. earmarking) the system fails. Or we could just write the Corps a check for $4.881 Billion and tell them to "do their job."

Before we say that's ok we need to remember that many of these programs and project's that are critical to the nation's economy and defense (i.e. maintenance of ports and harbors for commerce). These are two areas where R's and D's (and maybe even 30A Shopper) agree that we need to invest. 😀

The current dialogue of " wholesale banning earmarks" by elected officials as a way to reduce expenditures is not realistic in some instances but my explanation would get lost in the 24 hour news cycle. The reality of "banning earmarks" only allows the Executive Branch to determine where the money is spent when the Constitution says that it is Congress' job? So the real question is where are those Constitutional Conservatives now? Do they want to give that responsibility to the Executive Branch.

I hope the Transportation example by Rep. Mica and the Corps example I wrote about shows that the issue is much more complex than the 30-second soundbite that gets people elected.

For discussion, I found this interesting. Health Reform Will Reduce the Deficit — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and this:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

http://www.cbpp.org/about/#mission

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation?s premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.

About the Center
The Center conducts research and analysis to help shape public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that policymakers consider the needs of low-income families and individuals in these debates. We also develop policy options to alleviate poverty.

Cut the ridiculous military budget. Bring home the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by closing military bases in any country other than the US. Combine the Navy's Air Force with the Air Force. Stop producing machines of war that were last used in World War II. I can live with a readiness level that's only 1000% above the next militarized country.

Instead of simply discontinuing military personnel when they come home, retrain them to start dismantling our nuclear stock pile and offer those personnel to other countries willing to dismantle theirs.

The money savings would be huge initially, but I would also advocate 50% of those savings be spent on veterans to provide housing, health care, rehabilitation, and education primarily focusing on veterans with mental and physical disabilities.

Cut the ridiculous military budget. Bring home the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by closing military bases in any country other than the US. Combine the Navy's Air Force with the Air Force. Stop producing machines of war that were last used in World War II. I can live with a readiness level that's only 1000% above the next militarized country.

Instead of simply discontinuing military personnel when they come home, retrain them to start dismantling our nuclear stock pile and offer those personnel to other countries willing to dismantle theirs.

The money savings would be huge initially, but I would also advocate 50% of those savings be spent on veterans to provide housing, health care, rehabilitation, and education primarily focusing on veterans with mental and physical disabilities.

Been reading my posts elsewhere? I don't agree with the Navy airarm becoming part of the Air Force.

As to the nuclear bit...will never happen nor should it until there is agreement to do so by all nuclear nations.

One addition. Re-instate the draft. Switzerland has had compulsory military service for eons and never been in a war. Their youth, however, have learned responsibility through the requirement. I don't care if it is the military or something akin to the peace corp., everyone should serve their country as those needs are recognized.

I like the idea that we should have some sort of compulsory service - whether it be military, Peace Corp, or some domestic volunteer program that is like the old CCC.

The problem is funding it.

Been reading my posts elsewhere?

Believe it or not I didn't steal your idea. In fact despite my lack of military experience I'm very much aware that it's impossible to bring home every person in the military from all 177 countries like you are wanting to do.

Believe it or not I didn't steal your idea. In fact despite my lack of military experience I'm very much aware that it's impossible to bring home every person in the military from all 177 countries like you are wanting to do.

It's only 177 countries. Dang, I thought we were a BIG empire...:sarc:

I think we could definitely greatly reduce our presence, but obviously will still need to have bases in certain locations just for logistics - fueling etc.

Sharing bases with allies could help cut down costs and redundancy.

Did anyone hear about that book about the proliferation of intelligence/anti-terrorist thinktank subcontractors since 9/11. There are now over a hundred different organizations, many of which are private contractors, all working to "inhance" our anti-terrorism efforts. Problem is, none of these organizations really communicate well with each other, sometimes there are as many as eight groups pretty much doing the same tasks, and absolutely no one is able to sift thru the data to analyze what is what. The prime reason for these groups is so that congressmen can brag that we have thrown x amount of money at this program and have x amount of assets working on these problems, and somehow, I don't feel safer.

So what's an earmark and if we don't tell federal agencies how to spend the money then how do we know what we are paying for?

For example, if the President allocates $4.881 billion dollars to the Civil Works Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to "do their job," is that an earmark? How about if the President allocates the following amounts in the following accounts:

$1.69B for Construction
$2.361B for Operations and Maintenance
$240M for Miss. River and Tributaries
$30M for Flood Control and Emergencies
$104M for Investigations
$193M for Regulatory
$185M for Expenses
$6M for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
$130M for the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
-$58M for Cancellation of unobligated expenses

Is the above earmarking or programmatic funding? Or are they the same?

To take it to it's lowest level, the President also directs monies to projects and programs that his administration through the Office of Management and Budget have decided are in the Nation's interest. (I won't get into the details of their decision-making process as it is very confusing). For example, the Administration believes that $7M of the Operations & Maintenance Account should be allocated for the National Coastal Mapping Program. The Senate believes it should be $9.5M while the House says $0. The Corps themselves say that they need $13M. Is this an earmark?

My point is there are some programs that are earmarks and a number of agencies (such as the Corps) that work like a consulting firm where there positions are funded through project or program-specific earmarking. There is no annual allocation for all staff- it's project or program driven so without specific direction (i.e. earmarking) the system fails. Or we could just write the Corps a check for $4.881 Billion and tell them to "do their job."

Before we say that's ok we need to remember that many of these programs and project's that are critical to the nation's economy and defense (i.e. maintenance of ports and harbors for commerce). These are two areas where R's and D's (and maybe even 30A Shopper) agree that we need to invest. 😀

The current dialogue of " wholesale banning earmarks" by elected officials as a way to reduce expenditures is not realistic in some instances but my explanation would get lost in the 24 hour news cycle. The reality of "banning earmarks" only allows the Executive Branch to determine where the money is spent when the Constitution says that it is Congress' job? So the real question is where are those Constitutional Conservatives now? Do they want to give that responsibility to the Executive Branch.

I hope the Transportation example by Rep. Mica and the Corps example I wrote about shows that the issue is much more complex than the 30-second soundbite that gets people elected.

Those earmarks used to build John Murtha's airport and the like. Usually those that are considered pork pbarrel projects that are inserted into the budgets and are there because someone needs a vote for something else. As Forrest Gump said " That's all I have to say about that".

Those earmarks used to build John Murtha's airport and the like. Usually those that are considered pork pbarrel projects that are inserted into the budgets and are there because someone needs a vote for something else. As Forrest Gump said " That's all I have to say about that".

And I think many people would agree with you. The problem is that few want to do the hard job of evaluating spending requests on merit versus taking the easy road of "banning all earmarks." Most people don't realize that earmarks totaled $15.9B in the fiscal year that ended September 30, which was about 1% of the DISCRETIONARY budget. If you add in the non-discretionary portion then it was much less than 1% of the total budget. This is a case of let's go after the "symbolic" cuts instead of straightening what's truly impacting our financial house. Here's another article with arguments for earmarking from some fairly conservative Senate republican's.

Sen. Inhofe on warpath against earmark ban - TheHill.com

I think we could definitely greatly reduce our presence, but obviously will still need to have bases in certain locations just for logistics - fueling etc.

Sharing bases with allies could help cut down costs and redundancy.

That's true, but we don't have military bases in 177 countries. It was kind of joke. We do have a military presence in 177 countries if you count the Marines guarding our embassy's.

And I think many people would agree with you. The problem is that few want to do the hard job of evaluating spending requests on merit versus taking the easy road of "banning all earmarks." Most people don't realize that earmarks totaled $15.9B in the fiscal year that ended September 30, which was about 1% of the DISCRETIONARY budget. If you add in the non-discretionary portion then it was much less than 1% of the total budget. This is a case of let's go after the "symbolic" cuts instead of straightening what's truly impacting our financial house. Here's another article with arguments for earmarking from some fairly conservative Senate republican's.

Sen. Inhofe on warpath against earmark ban - TheHill.com

In my opinion, this is a perfect place to start. With it being 1% of the whole it starts with a small peeble into a large pond and ripples outward. What I am saying it could be an easy start. If I was in serious debt and bankruptcy was NOT an option how would I go about reducing my debt. Start small and work my way to the bigger ones. We the people say we want cuts, until it affect our pet projects. These are the areas I would start to cut, Grants, Museums, Libraries, Loans to foriegn countries, The UN, NPR, PBS, not because they are not worthy of our support but because before I begin to change SS and Medicare, I am going to reduce spending on the pictures I put in my house and what I see on TV. I am going to get my house in order before I continue to help someone else get their house in order. Old saying I heard, give a man a fish feed him for a day, teach a man to fish feed him for life. Areas I would not cut, Military, Education, Infastructure. I know those of you who think Education should be cut, and I don't have the answer to fix it, but until I or someone else does I am not willing to see it go bye bye. Some suggested compulsory service and I almost agree, and am still mulling it over as to my veiw.

To paraphrase Evertt Dirksen, a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you are talking real money. There are better ways to distribute federal funds to the states and congressional districts. Grants for specific projects when the projects have been justified, block grants to the states to be used at their discretion would be a good start.

FF2, as I was saying, and beachsio2 is saying, cutting earmarks doesn't cut the budget. It only removes particular politicians from saying how the money is spent.