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

off road vehicles using untaxed diesel fuel are illegal to drive on roads. There are huge fines if they are caught and the untaxed fuel has a color additive to make it easy to spot when checking.

I'm not defending idling rebates.

Who said anything about me being against minimum drinking age, seatbelt laws and such? I think you are trigger happy. Settle down. I simply said that the fed's used tax dollar allocation as carrots over states, making states basically jump on the fed's choices for those things, rather than each state making its own laws.

On October 23, 2000, President Clinton signed legislation that will require each state to pass .08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) as the presumptive level of intoxication for driving, or lose a portion of their federal highway funding. States have until October 1, 2003, to pass a .08% BAC ?per se" law that would meet the provisions of an existing federal incentive grant or face the withholding of 2 percent of their federal highway construction funds, as part of the new .08% law. States that have not passed a .08% BAC law by October 1, 2004, will lose 4 percent of their federal highway construction funds. States without .08% BAC per se laws by October 1, 2005, will lose 6 percent of their federal highway construction funds, and on October 1, 2006, and each year thereafter, states without .08% BAC laws will lose 8 percent of their funds.

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.

I agree, then rather than trying to figure out what to cut, we should look at how we can change the way things operate in our seats of Government. I do understand how our government operates, some I like some not so much. When the leadership in the House and Senate at the National and State level dictate to those we send to represent us, the way they are to represent us then it is screwed up. So Brad, Marti, Jimmy, Don, Little Gaetz, Evers and the like, remember you are there to represent the folks that put you there and you should consider what is in the best inyerest of the electorate who put you there and not the Leadership of your party. That goes for the Dems also.

I guess the new level for the RNC is $500,000.00+ to play.

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.

In the spirit of bipartisanship and sanity, I propose that the first thing on the chopping block should be an ineffective organization that wastes money, violates our rights, and encourages us to make decisions that imperil our safety. I?m talking about the Transportation Security Administration.

Bipartisan support should be immediate. For fiscal conservatives, it?s hard to come up with a more wasteful agency than the TSA. For privacy advocates, eliminating an organization that requires you to choose between a nude body scan or genital groping in order to board a plane should be a no-brainer.

The Post Office lost $8.5 billion this year - my suggestion is to severely cut back on indirect advertising (why does a money loser need to sponsor a cycling team?) and crank up the rates for standard mail (advertising, political fliers etc.) - both from an environmental and economic perspective.

Would certainly love it if they changed the rules so incompetent and unhelpful airport personnel couldn't use the TSA as a weapon against customers. If they put half the effort into helping that they do threatening people with the TSA the skies would run a lot better.

Big government is expensive.

After more than 100+ legs flown this year, I can say without a doubt that some of the worst TSA officials are in the smallest airports. I am in and out of Reagan National in DC at least twice a month and it is night and day to some of the small airports. The small airports drive me NUTS!!!

Who hates the USPS?