What is your 1-year contingency plan to deal with the aftermath of the elimination of the Department of Education and the Department of Housing and Urban Development?

Also, you summarized your plan to pay off the debt with "part of the budget must be put towards paying down the debt" - how much of the budget would that be?

I'd like to see your numbers on this, perferably after you've tallied them up yourself, rather than just pointing to Cato's. Are these your proposals or are you paraphrasing the Cato Institute?

He's paraphrasing the Cato Institute. Which is what he's said. Multiple times. IN THIS THREAD.

CS22 wrote:(Roughly following the CATO plan or a similar one to achieve $1 trillion cuts.)

CS22 wrote: I will merely point to the CATO plan for now.

CS22 wrote:Now, to reduce the debt is simple - part of the budget must be put towards paying down the debt (which I believe is part of the CATO plan, IIRC)

You're nitpicking at the numbers, instead of discussing the concept. Bogging down the conversation in specifics to prevent discussion of the broader ideas.

Actually, I think he's paraphrasing Glen Beck's proposal in his newest book, Broke. (Which Beck may have gotten from CATO but without giving them credit for the ideas.) He's just listing what Beck had listed as substance changes he would make. The other half of Beck's changes basically involved telling his readers the changes they would have to make in order to agree with the substance changes.

I believe Beck would have shifted the burden of the Education & HUD onto the states where Mr. Beck felt are more appropriate areas that the states could best run the former cabinet level positions.

ampersand wrote:Actually, I think he's paraphrasing Glen Beck's proposal in his newest book, Broke.

I was wondering how long it would take for that to come up. As for the proposals, yes, they are mostly from Beck's book. The specific cuts, however, are from the CATO plan. CATO's plan is far more specific (albeit in incomplete form on the internet - and the book version is a few years out of date).

(Which Beck may have gotten from CATO but without giving them credit for the ideas.)

Beck's book is an extension of a special week of episodes he did earlier in the year. The majority of his guests that week were from CATO. To say the idea started with CATO is a bit strange - the balanced budget Amendment idea started with Thomas Jefferson.

The other half of Beck's changes basically involved telling his readers the changes they would have to make in order to agree with the substance changes.

I would say that it is more an attempt to convince the reader that his ideas are right and will work with various arguments.

I believe Beck would have shifted the burden of the Education & HUD onto the states where Mr. Beck felt are more appropriate areas that the states could best run the former cabinet level positions.

Beck claims (and I agree) that Education and HUD are not only better served at the state level, but violate the 10th Amendment. There is no doubt that he would advocate elimination of these departments.

So let me ask you this, CS22: I'm the village clerk for a small town that has to follow state and federal regulations from a whole host of agencies, departments, for various things because about 80% of our revenue comes from grants and loans from the state and federal government.

How does what you/Beck/CATO propose affect my work? Will I be seeing a shift in funding from federal to state? Would there be more emphasis on state adherence to agreements and policies? (For example, we had a disagreement on how much needed to be shifted from one account to another account because there was basically a pissing match between the USDA and the Missouri DNR. In other words, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the United States Department of Agriculture fought over who gets to have the final say as to which branch dictates the terms of agreement to the Village of Cosby all because we received two equal sized loans from both divisions.) Would cities, county governments and smaller governments entities (e.g. schools) be on their own?

ampersand wrote:So let me ask you this, CS22: I'm the village clerk for a small town that has to follow state and federal regulations from a whole host of agencies, departments, for various things because about 80% of our revenue comes from grants and loans from the state and federal government.

How does what you/Beck/CATO propose affect my work? Will I be seeing a shift in funding from federal to state? Would there be more emphasis on state adherence to agreements and policies? (For example, we had a disagreement on how much needed to be shifted from one account to another account because there was basically a pissing match between the USDA and the Missouri DNR. In other words, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the United States Department of Agriculture fought over who gets to have the final say as to which branch dictates the terms of agreement to the Village of Cosby all because we received two equal sized loans from both divisions.) Would cities, county governments and smaller governments entities (e.g. schools) be on their own?

Ok, well, I can take a shot at this. In general, you would be dealing far more with the state government. The funding would come more from the state/county than the federal government. The Department of Agriculture would be entirely removed from the process. Also, I would think that the type of disagreement you used as an example probably won't happen nearly as much because the state would have far more control.

I can't really give specifics because I don't know your situation, but I would also think that cities/counties/states would also need to "tighten their belts" and balance their budgets.

In general, it doesn't make sense for money to come from the states to the feds and then back to the states. If the states need money, they should figure out a way to get it from people that live there, not people that live in other states where the money is also needed.

Ok. I think the plan is doable, but it requires the Federal Government to have a rainy day fund to smooth out occasional decreases in revenue. So, a practical way of implementing this as is, would be to set the legal maximum national debt in stone and have it decrease at a relatively fixed rate.

collegestudent22 wrote:I can't really give specifics because I don't know your situation, but I would also think that cities/counties/states would also need to "tighten their belts" and balance their budgets.

Right, so at that point pretty much anyone besides New England, Texas, Florida, and the west coast get to have one of the following: roads, education, or police. And pretty much nothing else.

This is sort of a no-go.

No, they get to make difficult decisions about what they need and what they want.

Hell, the police in Albany County, Wyoming are paid for. So are the roads. And the schools. And the budget is balanced and funded entirely by a 5% sales tax in the county.

collegestudent22 wrote:Hell, the police in Albany County, Wyoming are paid for. So are the roads. And the schools. And the budget is balanced and funded entirely by a 5% sales tax in the county.

Wyoming has about ten people living in it. Pick a state with something to worry about besides rocks.

Yeah, because taxes don't scale based on population or anything.

collegestudent22 wrote:Yeah, because taxes don't scale based on population or anything.

Costs scale faster.

Salvation122 wrote:

collegestudent22 wrote:Yeah, because taxes don't scale based on population or anything.

Costs scale faster.

Evidence? Because in terms of roads, they don't - standard cars/trucks aren't even factored in when designing and repairing roads, and it isn't like each neighborhoods require more roads if overall population rises. They just build more neighborhoods. In terms of schools, they don't - large cities pay more, but not because the cost scale per student.

Arres wrote:No, they get to make difficult decisions about what they need and what they want.

No, you ignorant dolt, it means most states would be utterly fucked.

Let's take a look at the Mississippi FY 2011 Budget. You can find it here (pdf link.)

Page 18: Federal funds account for roughly 15% of the Attorney General's office.
Page 19: Federal funds account for roughly 30% of public education spending (k-12). That's after cutting education by 10% from the previous year.
Page 19: Federal funds account for roughly 10% of higher education spending (public universities and community colleges.)
Page 19: Federal funds account for roughly 50% of the funding for the Department of Public Health.
Page 20: Federal funds account for 75% of Social Welfare spending (medicaid, mostly.)
Page 20: Federal funds account for 88% of emergency management.
Page 21: Federal funds account for 90% of public safety appropriations.

In total, federal funds account for 50% of Mississippi's total general fund appropriations. That doesn't count roads, where federal funds comprise roughly half of road construction costs and nearly all of the Department of Transportation.

If you would kindly tell me where you'd find room to cut half of the state's motherfucking budget I'm sure our state legislature would be interested.