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

[scooterbug44]

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.

 

[30ashopper]

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.)

 

[Smiling JOe]

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.

 

[Lake View Too]

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.

 

[Bob Wells]

Get rid of earmarks

 

[Alicia Leonard]

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

 

[GoodWitch58]

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.

 

[Smiling JOe]

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.

 

[BeachSiO2]

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

 

[Bob Wells]

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.