I think we ALL agree that we need to get government spending and waste (at the federal and state level) under control.
Please post your DETAILED and NON-POLITICAL SNARK suggestions for how to do so - both revenue producing and expenditure reducing - and list what you think the pros and cons of this action are, as well as the amount you think it is worth.
Please critique other's suggestions ONLY based on their fiscal merit, possible consequences, or hidden costs. There are 467 other threads full of partisan bickering and vague philosophical agendas.
Critiques of numbers/sources should have a contradicting link to refute them - MERELY QUESTIONING SOMEONE'S SOURCE IS NOT OKAY, YOU NEED TO HAVE CONTRADICTORY NUMBERS.
CampCreekLou posted this earlier and I thought it could be a starting point for the discussion/give people ideas. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/How-to-Cut-343-Billion-from-the-Federal-Budget
Here are my suggestions:
1) Tax campaign contributions - 10% across the board for all races and PACs with the proceeds going to balance the budget in each given municipality. All money left in the "war chest" after the election is donated as well. Money collected for candidates who drop out of the race or choose not to run is also forfeit.
Pros: This does not raise taxes for anyone and generates revenue. Opens up campaign finances to more scrutiny from the IRS. Everyone is treated equally.
Cons: Politicians won't vote for it.
2) All federal employees must fly coach on domestic flights to be reimbursed. This will save approximately $70 million a year.
Pros: Easy savings, applies to everyone equally.
Cons: None I can think of. The option is still open for them to upgrade on their dime/use miles.
3) Plastic bag fee - all stores & vendors must charge 10 cents for every plastic bag. The collected fee goes to recycling programs.
Pros: This is a proven way to make people immediately aware of their consumption, reduce waste and our consumption of fossil fuels. This applies to everyone equally.
Cons: The plastics industry lobbyists have our politicians' ears and in some areas have made laws to prevent this from happening.
Replies
111Beach Fanatic
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.
according to the Center for Resonsive Politics Personal Finance Disclosure | OpenSecrets there are 237 millionaires in Congress.
If we are talking "small cuts" then, we could start with having each member of Congress pay for their Health Insurance the same way everyone else does. Most companies/organizations pay a portion of the insurance premium; the employee pays the rest.
Is there any reason the taxpayers should be paying for members of Congress health benefits? I don't think so. I have no idea how much money this would come to; but, I think it would send a strong message if the people demanded their elected officials to share in the cost of their own (and their families) health care.
Edited
Beach Lover
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.)
2.0 Trillion Dollars is enough, so we don't have to worry about raising any tax rates.
Cut the over 300 Billion Dollars listed in the aforementioned Heritage.org article.
Repeal ObamaCare (1 Trillion Dollars right there!)
(enact tort reform, cross-state purchasing, etc...... if you want)
Start the transition from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system - staving off the bankruptcy of SS.
Beach Lover
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.
You are absolutely right. But let's challenge the premise. Why should we have the Federal Government distribute funds at all?
For example, transfer all responsibility for roads to the states, and let them keep the federal gas tax generated in their state. No earmark problems, to Bridge To Nowheres, states keep their own roads up, no Museums To Benefit Senator Standing, etc.
If you want, shutter the Department of Education, along with repealing all unfunded federal education mandates, like No Child Left Behind. Reduce the federal tax rates, let the states keep their money.
Bold solutions are needed. We don't have much time. We've added 5 Trillion Dollars of debt over the past fives years, we need to take the money and spending out of the federal government's hands.
SWGB
You are absolutely right. But let's challenge the premise. Why should we have the Federal Government distribute funds at all?
For example, transfer all responsibility for roads to the states, and let them keep the federal gas tax generated in their state. No earmark problems, to Bridge To Nowheres, states keep their own roads up, no Museums To Benefit Senator Standing, etc.
If you want, shutter the Department of Education, along with repealing all unfunded federal education mandates, like No Child Left Behind. Reduce the federal tax rates, let the states keep their money.
Bold solutions are needed. We don't have much time. We've added 5 Trillion Dollars of debt over the past fives years, we need to take the money and spending out of the federal government's hands.
One of the simplest reasons is that you'll have roads that end at state lines. This was literally one of the reasons for the creation of our nations highway system. That and to prevent states from erecting giant toll plazas at the border.
Beach Fanatic
Breaking news from the AP
I wonder how well that is going to go over...
Leaders of a bipartisan deficit commission appointed by President Barack Obama proposed cutting the annual cost of living increases for Social Security, the Associated Press reported.
I wonder how well that is going to go over...
Beach Fanatic
You are absolutely right. But let's challenge the premise. Why should we have the Federal Government distribute funds at all?
For example, transfer all responsibility for roads to the states, and let them keep the federal gas tax generated in their state. No earmark problems, to Bridge To Nowheres, states keep their own roads up, no Museums To Benefit Senator Standing, etc.
If you want, shutter the Department of Education, along with repealing all unfunded federal education mandates, like No Child Left Behind. Reduce the federal tax rates, let the states keep their money.
Bold solutions are needed. We don't have much time. We've added 5 Trillion Dollars of debt over the past fives years, we need to take the money and spending out of the federal government's hands.
And so you would end up with 50 independent countries..instead of the United States.
:idontno:
SoWal ExpertAuthor
The most costly road projects are typically bridges that span the rivers dividing states or large road systems like interstates, so that doesn't work.
I do like the idea that a percentage of each state's gas taxes go to them to distribute as they see fit. Say 25% goes to federal, 75% goes to state.
The guys in charge are joking they will have to join the witness protection program.
This is what the voters supposedly asked for - and now they don't like the reality of what it means.
The majority of it sounds very reasonable - and a lot of it includes ideas we have been discussing.
Raising the age for Social Security, change how the cost of living is calculated, reduce SS payments to those who are well off, cuts in farm subsidies, cuts to Pentagon budget, reduce foreign aid, and increasing the gas tax.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40111748/ns/politics-more_politics/
I do like the idea that a percentage of each state's gas taxes go to them to distribute as they see fit. Say 25% goes to federal, 75% goes to state.
Breaking news from the AP
I wonder how well that is going to go over...
The guys in charge are joking they will have to join the witness protection program.
This is what the voters supposedly asked for - and now they don't like the reality of what it means.
The majority of it sounds very reasonable - and a lot of it includes ideas we have been discussing.
Raising the age for Social Security, change how the cost of living is calculated, reduce SS payments to those who are well off, cuts in farm subsidies, cuts to Pentagon budget, reduce foreign aid, and increasing the gas tax.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40111748/ns/politics-more_politics/
Edited
SWGB
The most costly road projects are typically bridges that span the rivers dividing states or large road systems like interstates, so that doesn't work.
I do like the idea that a percentage of each state's gas taxes go to them to distribute as they see fit. Say 25% goes to federal, 75% goes to state.
You might want to look into the Florida Gas Tax. It's not a Federal only tax. In fact your division is almost how it works currently. Some Metro areas have higher taxes for local road projects as well.
The state could save money by removing some of the ridiculous exemptions:
FL Dept Rev - Fuel Taxes
Diesel fuel used for off-road or other exempt purposes.
Diesel fuel used by motor coaches during idle time.
You can actually get refunds on the tax for these. :shock:
Beach Fanatic
according to the Center for Resonsive Politics Personal Finance Disclosure | OpenSecrets there are 237 millionaires in Congress.
If we are talking "small cuts" then, we could start with having each member of Congress pay for their Health Insurance the same way everyone else does. Most companies/organizations pay a portion of the insurance premium; the employee pays the rest.
Is there any reason the taxpayers should be paying for members of Congress health benefits? I don't think so. I have no idea how much money this would come to; but, I think it would send a strong message if the people demanded their elected officials to share in the cost of their own (and their families) health care.
I don't have a huge problem with that.
Beach Fanatic
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.
But if no earmarks are allowed, then no politician gets to decide how any money is spent. Example, if you want a museum and the citizens want the Feds to fund it but there are rule forbidding anyone from Congress from placing in the budget then thats money saved. In my mind this seems simple.
SoWal Insider
Today the folks heading up Obama's debt commission released preliminary information on what they are going to propose:
U.S. Debt Proposal Would Cut Social Security, Taxes, Medicare - Bloomberg
U.S. Debt Proposal Would Cut Social Security, Taxes, Medicare - Bloomberg
SoWal ExpertAuthor
I don't have a huge problem with that.Only thing I can think of is the health insurer somehow coercing them or giving members of Congress a deal.
The IRS or some other oversight group can easily solve that.
SoWal Insider
More details from WaPo:
Deficit panel leaders propose curbs on Social Security, major cuts in spending, tax breaks
Deficit panel leaders propose curbs on Social Security, major cuts in spending, tax breaks
SoWal ExpertAuthor
More details from WaPo:
Deficit panel leaders propose curbs on Social Security, major cuts in spending, tax breaks
Sounds pretty good so far:
"The plan would squeeze another $100 billion a year out of the tax code through a comprehensive strategy that would eliminate all of the expensive and popular deductions known as tax expenditures. The would include tax breaks for mortgage interest and employer-provided health care and special rates for capital gains and dividends.
While some of the cash would be dedicated to deficit reduction, some would go toward an overhaul of the tax code that would lower rates for most taxpayers and eliminate the unpopular alternative minimum tax. The six current tax brackets would be replaced by three brackets with rates of 8 percent, 14 percent and 23 percent. The corporate tax rate, currently the highest in the industrial world at 35 percent, would be reduced to 26 percent.
The plan leaves in place a vast expansion of health-care coverage enacted under Obama's new health law, rejecting Republican calls to repeal "Obamacare." Instead, it would strengthen the cost-cutting mechanisms in the law that seek to squeeze savings from Medicare. And it would permanently protect doctors from a sharp scheduled cut in Medicare payments in exchange for other forms of payment reform and cost-sharing. The plan would also offer doctors new protection from malpractice lawsuits."
SWGB
Why don't we speed up the process even further and not include tax cuts. I understand that people will take a hit, especially those with mortgages and babies, but why don't politicians understand that while taxes are part of the budget they are at the top under income and not further down under expenditures. :bang:
SoWal Insider
Reasonable stuff. Which is exactly why it'll go absolutely no where fast.
SWGB
Reasonable stuff. Which is exactly why it'll go absolutely no where fast.
Especially once it hits 500+ people that each have a different take on what's vital and what's not.
SoWal Insider
A complete set of bullet points here:
The President's Debt Commission Proposal ? Something to Offend Everyone: Doctors, Lawyers, Even Indian Chiefs - Political Punch
The President's Debt Commission Proposal ? Something to Offend Everyone: Doctors, Lawyers, Even Indian Chiefs - Political Punch
Beach Fanatic
But if no earmarks are allowed, then no politician gets to decide how any money is spent. Example, if you want a museum and the citizens want the Feds to fund it but there are rule forbidding anyone from Congress from placing in the budget then thats money saved. In my mind this seems simple.
What about if the President wants it? He is a POLITICIAN. It seems simple, but that's not how it works. Almost all projects and programs are allocated money by a politician. For example, the Civil Works Program is funded almost 100% by funds "earmarked" for specific purposes. The question is which politician do you want allocating those dollars- the President in February via his budget (and relatively no public oversight or participation) or Congress through votes on the 12 appropriation bills after numerous hours of subcommittee and committee meetings?
If you think the negotiations for Health Care Reform were done outside of the public realm then try to participate in the development of the President's earmark package (i.e. his budget). A huge aspect that everyone seems to miss is that this will make the allocation of their tax dollars less transparent than ANY time in history.
The Constitution says it should be the Congress and I happen to agree. Some Congressmen and women are now saying it's the President (whether they realize it or not). Eliminating earmarks does not necessarily eliminate projects as we will still need our ports maintained for commerce and defense which are national priorities. I believe that there should be more transparency in federal expenditures and the only way to achieve that is through an open and deliberative process in Congress. Below are some earmark reforms that are being proposed that I think would aid in the process.
Coalition Releases Principles for Reforming Earmarks Process ? Sunlight Foundation Blog
Banning all earmarks will not get rid of projects and lower the budget. What they will do is move from being Congressionally-directed to Presidentially-directed and thus "less transparent" through the development of the President's budget.
Edited
SoWal ExpertAuthor
Especially once it hits 500+ people that each have a different take on what's vital and what's not.
Heck, they are talking about it not even moving out of the 14 person committee!
SoWal Insider
Especially once it hits 500+ people that each have a different take on what's vital and what's not.
Kinda of sad, but probably true.
This has just about everything we've been talking about in it. Maybe the american people will get behind it.
Beach Fanatic
You might want to look into the Florida Gas Tax. It's not a Federal only tax. In fact your division is almost how it works currently. Some Metro areas have higher taxes for local road projects as well.
The state could save money by removing some of the ridiculous exemptions:
FL Dept Rev - Fuel Taxes
Diesel fuel used for off-road or other exempt purposes.
Diesel fuel used by motor coaches during idle time.
You can actually get refunds on the tax for these. :shock:
I know it sounds rather crazy, but why should off road vehicles, such as tractors, be required to pay for roads? They are exempt from taxes because they don't cause wear and tear on the roads, which is the government's justification for charging taxes on fuel.
At first thought, idle time for motor coaches also sounds crazy, but they aren't tearing up the road when they are idle. I'm sure there is a lobbyist first somewhere which pushed that one through.
And so you would end up with 50 independent countries..instead of the United States.
:idontno:
No, you would end up with 50 States, each with their own rules, but coming together for some expenditures such as defense -- The USA was founded on this same style, but the federal gov't has been changing the power/authority of the fed gov't over the years by witholding funds from states if states don't comply with things such as minimum drinking age, seatbelt laws, etc.
SoWal Expert
But if no earmarks are allowed, then no politician gets to decide how any money is spent. Example, if you want a museum and the citizens want the Feds to fund it but there are rule forbidding anyone from Congress from placing in the budget then thats money saved. In my mind this seems simple.
Watch it now, you are starting to sound like a reasonable person. :lol: I think the way you describe it sounds like it makes sense, but our gov't doesn't operate quite that way. Two years ago, I, also thought that earmarks should be kicked to the curb. Then, I did more research and discovered that it really won't matter as the money will still be spent. The way I understand it, which may be incorrect, is that instead of money going to certain projects, crammed in bills, the money would go to appropriations where the appropriations committee would decide where to send that money, which comes right back to the politicians with the most pull/connections.
I'm no expert on this, but the more I learn about the systems and hoops in gov't, the more I realize it's a big game of who's who.
SWGB
I know it sounds rather crazy, but why should off road vehicles, such as tractors, be required to pay for roads? They are exempt from taxes because they don't cause wear and tear on the roads, which is the government's justification for charging taxes on fuel.
Let's look at South Walton, there are many roads that are unpaved, but the county is still responsible for grating them. The forest roads were recently maintained by the state by adding gravel. Assuming that pavement isn't involved makes a vehicle exempt is pretty narrow.
At first thought, idle time for motor coaches also sounds crazy, but they aren't tearing up the road when they are idle. I'm sure there is a lobbyist first somewhere which pushed that one through.
How does one prove they were idling and for how long? That exemption is basically a built in subsidy for motor coach operators.
No, you would end up with 50 States, each with their own rules, but coming together for some expenditures such as defense -- The USA was founded on this same style, but the federal gov't has been changing the power/authority of the fed gov't over the years by witholding funds from states if states don't comply with things such as minimum drinking age, seatbelt laws, etc.
So you're against minimum drinking age requirements, seatbelt laws, and a .08 BAC for DUI's?
Defense isn't the only large scale expense that this country has that would necessitate the states coming together. For some reason this idea of states fending for themselves sounds great, but how would you feel if all of the states unaffected by hurricanes gave Florida the finger after a major hurricane, or states unaffected by the Mississippi flooding chose not to help. The scenarios in which states would basically turn their backs on neighbors is endless and I feel more comfortable with the current system (which does need tweaking) than a system of really hoping your neighbor isn't mad at you or broke.
SoWal Insider
So you're against minimum drinking age requirements, seatbelt laws, and a .08 BAC for DUI's?
It's not about the individual laws, it's about giving individuals more control over their lives by keeping decisions as local as possible. (But you already knew this..)
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.