How to Cut/Increase Govt spending

[chiefhogskin48]

Ok, in the spirit of offering solutions to some of the annoyances and absurdities of our political system, I'd like to offer up my solutions to trimming the fattened cow that has become our government. I encourage you guys to propose ways in which you'd increase or decrease gov't spending (ie universal medicare, or on the other side, dissolving Social Security).

- Immediate end to major farm and industrial subsidy programs. Huge waste of money.

- Privatize the waste-monster known as "Amtrak". Such an inefficient dinosaur reminds one of a Soviet Russia.

- Find a way to eliminate what I call the "state welfare" of pork-barrel spending. Every year our budget is stuffed with the most useless, inane waste projects merely inserted to satisfy obscure districts who have representatives in high places( Robert Byrd come on down). Simply disgusting waste of money.

-In the same spirit, place tremendous scrutiny on wasteful exercises like the $100 billion "international" Space Station- (but hey, at least we know how lab rats react to gravity?) Also decrease our funding of the United Nations (we foot over 25% of the bill) and international aid packages.

- Allow the federal budget to expand at a rate no greater than the real GDP growth rate unless there is an economic or military emergency.

- Increase the received benefits age (2-3yrs) for Social Security recipients; the only way to truly make it solvent when the Baby Boomers come of age.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by chiefhogskin48

- Increase the received benefits age (2-3yrs) for Social Security recipients; the only way to truly make it solvent when the Baby Boomers come of age.

The Baby Boomers better have a back up plan since there are not enough of current workers to pay for their social security. At least in 40 years when my generation retires social security will be back to normal

[JackC]

1. Clean up the waste, fraud and abuse in the defense department.

2. Go to a flat tax with zero deductions and which treats all income the same. (earned and unearned). Close IRS.

3. Shut down and defund all public schools. We know the free market can do a better job right.

4. Legalize and tax drugs.

Now there's a start.

[Larry]

Require a 60% vote (in both houses) to start any new federal program. (If we're not doing it now, then it can't be that important). (While you're at it, make the same requirement for any new federal law, for the same reason.)

How about a rule requiring any new law or spending project to be a seperate bill. (No more "riders". No more coalition voting.) (Obviously, the Federal Budget, as a whole, whold be a single bill. But, any line item that wasn't in the White House budget request would have to be seperate.)

[Kilmer17]

Who are you, and what have you done with Jack?

To the point though. We cant eliminate farm subsidies for 2 reasons.

1- Farmers would overfarm to make up the lost $$$. Ultimately bad for the environment and future crop cycles.

2- Nobody wants to pay 5 dollars for a loaf of bread. The consumer outrage at the immediate rise in "staples" would be bad.

Reform it? Sure, but we cant get rid of it.

Id start by slashing the budget of every agency 50 percent (except the military). Institute a consumption tax and close the IRS. Open a new agency to oversee the new system. No one that worked for the IRS is eligible to work at the new agency.

Legalize and tax the hell out of pot. Make it mandatory 25 year sentence for anyone who bootlegs or black markets it. Make it a life sentence for anyone who resells it to kids.

Eliminate all foreign aide for problems that also exist at home. Example- 15 billion for AIDS in Africa? Nope, not until we take care of the problem at home first.

Penalize harshly any company/person/entity that fails to meet their Govt contract to the letter. Lockheed is a year late on new jets? They dont get paid.

[JackC]

Kilmer,

So we can go ahead and cut the military by 75%?

As for your pot sentences, don't you think they're a little harsh. Maybe life sentences for selling tabacco and beer to minors too?

[Kilmer17]

Sure, fine by me. If it's harsh and well publicized, maybe people wont do it.

That's my only fear with the legalization of pot.

[JackC]

Please note Kilmer just agreed to cut the military by 75%!

[jbooma]

Thank GOD none of you work in the government

:doh:

:laugh:

[JackC]

Originally posted by jbooma

Thank GOD none of you work in the government

:doh:

:laugh:

Does anyone? :laugh:

[Darth Tater]

Government and work:

I guess that's based on the definition you use. Since one definition is any action to overcome an obstacle or achieve a goal, since the goal is to get your check, don't they work?

Fraud and waste in the government:

Do we only do it up to where the costs of eliminating the opportunities for waste/fraud surpass the costs incurred from those actions? If so, we may be near that point.

Military Budget:

As far as the military budget is concerned, you can touch it when 1) budgets are cut for non-constitutional federal activities, 2) budgets are cut/slashed for federal activities that are quasi-constitutional.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by OPM

Government and work:

I guess that's based on the definition you use. Since one definition is any action to overcome an obstacle or achieve a goal, since the goal is to get your check, don't they work?

I meant in a position within the federal government where you can make some sort of influence on the laws

[chiefhogskin48]

Originally posted by JackC

1. Clean up the waste, fraud and abuse in the defense department.

2. Go to a flat tax with zero deductions and which treats all income the same. (earned and unearned). Close IRS.

3. Shut down and defund all public schools. We know the free market can do a better job right.

4. Legalize and tax drugs.

Now there's a start.

Holy Sh!t jack, that is quite a start. Good ideas. And here you you call yourself a liberal.

[DaFunky1]

Originally posted by JackC

Does anyone? :laugh:

I did... retraining due to 2 bulging discs in my back.

I agree with the need to cut spending and reduce increases.

I would increase DOD spending though. Cutting funding to public schools would be good by me.

I'm surprised that you support that Jack... not that you have tow the party line...

I'd like to see a consumption tax. It would be nice to get some tax on under the table workers other than state sales tax.

Peace

[codeorama]

Legalize drugs and tax them.

Eliminate IRS.. go to consumption tax.

Eliminate Welfare credit for each additional child...

Force those on Welfare to work.

Eliminate giving MONEY to foriegn countries (ie: the billions going to africa for AIDS, we should use the money to find a cure here in the US using our scientists, then help them by providing the cure)

Stop US from doing Humanitarian Police work in other parts of the world. Spend the money to protect the US instead. (ie: Homeland Security dept, More Nukes for us, more and better weapons that will deter others from flucking with us.)

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by OPM

Military Budget:

As far as the military budget is concerned, you can touch it when 1) budgets are cut for non-constitutional federal activities, 2) budgets are cut/slashed for federal activities that are quasi-constitutional.

Ok - so no one wants to define that...which activities are you specifically talking about...

The Constitution, under my understanding, was created to be a living document. One that could be adapted as time went on...and was, again under my understanding, left purposely vague in some areas...

Don't you think then, that most programs will be, in some form or another, allowable under the Constitution?

Specifically, what spending/programs are we talking about?

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Who are you, and what have you done with Jack?

To the point though. We cant eliminate farm subsidies for 2 reasons.

1- Farmers would overfarm to make up the lost $$$. Ultimately bad for the environment and future crop cycles.

2- Nobody wants to pay 5 dollars for a loaf of bread. The consumer outrage at the immediate rise in "staples" would be bad.

K- Farm subsisidies are in the form of price supports, which actually force prices up higher - thus eliminating farm subsidies would actually reduce the cost of agriculture. Nor woud farmers overwork the land - Overproduction, which is most common is Europe, is again a direct result of government support (Gov'ts guarantee to buy agricultural goods at a certain bottom rate to ensure prices never fall below a certain level). If we ended subsidies, the amount of land farmed would actually decrease, and prices would go down. Several years ago the Economist did a study concluding that government agricultural policies cost the global economy $300 billion dollars a year in higher taxes and higher food prices. A better solution would be for the government to offer some kind of subsidy for crop insurance, to at least protect farmers against weather conditions. Nobody overfarms or starves in Australia, where they don't have farm subsidies. Also, remember that the majority of agricultural subsidies goes to large corporations (particularly Archer Daniels Midland), and wealthy part time farmers (ie Sam Donaldson).

As for military spending, we need to spend more on R & D, and more on intelligence and mobility. We need to know what rogue states are doing and be able to move as many soldiers/equipment asap when necessary. We need to stop spending money on no longer needed Cold War projects like the B2, and obsolete military bases. Also, we should dissolve NATO and scale back our worldwide commitments. I really like the fact that we seem to be making plans to pull out of less welcoming nations like Germany and Saudi Arabia.

[Kilmer17]

Australia is a bad example because so few people live there.

IM interested in that analysis though because it seems to contradict basic economic principles.

If the farmers produce less goods, why wont that make supply go down and increase the cost per unit?

Agreed that reform is needed, but I'll need more info to agree with the idea of totally cutting them out.

[JackC]

Originally posted by OPM

Government and work:

I guess that's based on the definition you use. Since one definition is any action to overcome an obstacle or achieve a goal, since the goal is to get your check, don't they work?

Fraud and waste in the government:

Do we only do it up to where the costs of eliminating the opportunities for waste/fraud surpass the costs incurred from those actions? If so, we may be near that point.

Military Budget:

As far as the military budget is concerned, you can touch it when 1) budgets are cut for non-constitutional federal activities, 2) budgets are cut/slashed for federal activities that are quasi-constitutional.

As long as there are sacred cows than real reform is not possible.

Originally posted by chiefhogskin48

Holy Sh!t jack, that is quite a start. Good ideas. And here you you call yourself a liberal.

Thanks.

We don't need to provide free education! Let the parents teach their own children on their own nickel!

[luckydevil]

We don't need to provide free education! Let the parents teach their own children on their own nickel!

Clearly sarcasm.

[jbooma]

Originally posted by JackC

We don't need to provide free education! Let the parents teach their own children on their own nickel!

Was Jack home schooled :cool:

[Darth Tater]

TEG,

What is constitutional and what is not is quite obvious: the only valid function of the government is to defend personal liberty. If one wishes to use it to insure or increase economic liberty or more political liberty via the government, ammend the document to do that. But then, there is a reason that I didn't capitalize the phrase constitutional here.

[The Evil Genius]

Originally posted by OPM

TEG,

What is constitutional and what is not is quite obvious: the only valid function of the government is to defend personal liberty. If one wishes to use it to insure or increase economic liberty or more political liberty via the government, ammend the document to do that. But then, there is a reason that I didn't capitalize the phrase constitutional here.

I dunno if its that cut and dry...to me (and I guess more than just me), the preamble can mean a myriad of things...especially that little clause about promoting the general welfare

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

[Larry]

Yep, there are some phrases in the Constitution that really are open for a lot of things:

#1 on my list is the "general welfare" clause. That phrase, (which also exists in the body of the Constitution, and basicly says Congress has the authority to tax, spend, or leglislate, as long as they're doing it to "promote the general welfare"), basically says the Government can do anything, as long as they have good intentions. (Yeah, I really think our country as a whole, will be a better place if the Feds pay to dig enough canals to make Tulsa an oceangoing port.)

#2 on my list of Phrases I Wish They'd Left Out is "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". An argument can be made that that phrase is simply a reason why that article exists. Or, it could also be argued that this is the only part of the Constitution which has an "expiration clause". (Or, that that phrase limits who the article applies to.)

[Riggo-toni]

K17 - I can't vouch for how impartial this link is (partuclarly since the author is named as an environmental analyst), but I doubt I kept the issue of the Economist from my last move, so....

http://www.consumeralert.org/issues/subsidy/farmbr.htm

Consumers Take Charge Agenda for the 104th Congress

Issue Brief

by Jonathan Tolman

Established in 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has become one of the largest agencies in the Federal government, with more than 120,000 employees. For every four full time farmers there is one USDA bureaucrat on the payroll. Not only does the huge bureaucracy cost taxpayers billions of dollars, but USDA constantly intervenes in agricultural markets for the benefit of farmers but at the expense of consumers. The USDA's own figures show that farm subsidies cost consumers $11.7 billion in taxes and higher food prices.

The most expensive USDA programs are the field crop programs such as the wheat and corn programs. Annually the USDA gives farmers more than $9 billion a year in direct payments. The USDA offers to pay farmers per bushel of commodity at a guaranteed price, invariably set above the market price. Normally this would encourage farmers to overproduce which would lower the price for consumers. But the USDA has instituted programs to keep the price of commodities as close to the artificially set government price as possible, thus not only wasting billions of tax dollars but artificially raising the prices of commodities as well.

Conservation Reserve Program -- Paying Farmers Not to Farm

The Conservation Reserve Program is the largest of the USDA's programs designed to keep the price of commodities high. Each year the USDA pays farmers nearly $2 billion to keep part of their land idle. Since the program began in 1986, the government has paid farmers to idle 36 million acres of farmland, an area the size of the entire state of Iowa. Taking such a huge chunk of farmland out of production restricts the supply of commodities, which ultimately raises their prices. Because of the USDA's supply control programs the consumer is forced to pay twice, once to the government and once at the check out line at the supermarket.

Sugar -- Import Restrictions Cost Consumers

Under some programs the USDA resorts to other methods to keep the price of a commodity artificially high. Under the sugar program the USDA offers a guaranteed price for sugar, but avoids directly paying farmers to restrict sugar supply. It does this by limiting the amount of sugar which can be imported into the U.S. Sugar cane is essentially a tropical plant. Consequently, it can only be grown in certain areas, principally Florida and Hawaii. Domestic sugar producers cannot economically produce enough sugar to meet domestic demand. This is why companies such as Coca-Cola use corn sweeteners instead of sugar. But by restricting the importation of sugar from countries which can economically produce sugar cane, U.S. sugar prices are often four times higher than world sugar prices. According to the General Accounting Office, this costs the American consumer $1.4 billion annually.

Peanuts -- Supply Quotas Cost Consumers

Every year the USDA establishes a quota on the number of pounds of peanuts that can be grown for domestic consumption. It distributes these quotas to peanut farmers who have a license to grow peanuts. It is illegal to produce and domestically sell peanuts in the United States without a USDA license.

The USDA decides who may plant peanuts--those with quotas on their acreage--how much they can plant in which counties and states, and sets an annual U.S. quota support price. Thus the federal government artificially restricts the supply of domestic peanuts, raising prices for consumers and granting a monopoly to peanut farmers. In addition, when peanut farmers produce more than their quotas, they cannot sell them domestically but can export them, generally at drastically lower prices than allowed in the domestic market. Thus, American consumers are usually paying more for peanuts produced in the U.S. than are consumers in other countries that import U.S. peanuts.

According to the GAO, the USDA peanut program annually forces consumers, mostly families with children, to pay more than $500 million more each year for their peanuts. A family sized, 40 oz. jar of peanut butter, for example, costs as much as 84 cents more than it would without the peanut program.

Dairy -- Government Price Setting Costs Consumers

Under the Dairy Market program the federal government has abandoned all pretenses of supply control and simply sets the price for milk. The price is set artificially high to benefit dairy farmers. A 1990 study published in the Journal of Consumer Affairs found that the dairy market program costs American consumers as much as $800 million a year in higher dairy prices. This does not include the cost that taxpayers pay to have the USDA purchase surplus dairy products for school lunch and international hunger relief programs.

Policy Recommendations -- Get Government Off the Farm

Congress should abolish price supports, marketing orders, supply quotas, and all other farm subsidies that waste tax dollars and make consumers pay more for food.

Jonathan Tolman is an environmental policy analyst for the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.